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. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Muhammad Zaman @ Jameel vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1885 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-17
  post-arrest bailjuvenile justiceheinous offencestatutory delaybeneficial legislationtherapeutic jurisprudenceright to liberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application concerns a juvenile applicant, aged 15, seeking post-arrest bail for offences under Sections 365-B and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant, a juvenile, could be denied bail for a "heinous offence" despite being under 16 years of age and having been incarcerated for over six months without trial completion. The Sindh High Court held that the restriction in Section 6(4) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, regarding heinous offences, applies exclusively to juveniles over 16 years of age. Consequently, the nature of the offence was immaterial for the applicant. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Section 6(5) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, mandates bail for any juvenile detained for a continuous period exceeding six months where the trial remains incomplete, provided the delay was not caused by the juvenile. The Court emphasized that the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, is beneficial legislation requiring progressive, expansive interpretation, and where two interpretations exist, the one favorable to the accused must prevail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the restriction on bail for 'heinous offences' under Section 6(4) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, apply to juveniles under sixteen years of age?
  • Is a juvenile entitled to bail under Section 6(5) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, if they have been detained for more than six months without the trial being completed?
  • Should statutory provisions regarding bail for juveniles be interpreted in a progressive and expansive manner?
  • Does the nature of the offence constitute a valid ground to withhold bail for a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, when the statutory detention period has been exceeded?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahid Ur Rehman vs The State2025 MLD 625 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-15
  dacoityrobberyspot arrestinjured accusedeyewitness testimonycriminal appealappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 392 and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rendered by the trial court in a dacoity case. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding his identification, arrest at the spot in an injured condition, and recovery of incriminating evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution witnesses, including multiple eyewitnesses and police officials, gave consistent and natural testimony that remained unshattered during cross-examination, and the appellant failed to establish any false implication or plausible defence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to discard a natural and consistent case?
  • Does the arrest of an accused at the spot in an injured condition by a security guard and police constitute strong circumstantial evidence of guilt?
  • Whether the uncorroborated denial of an accused in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 outweighs consistent eyewitness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousif vs The State2025 SHC SUK 1623 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-22
  post-arrest bailcybercrimeblackmailingprohibitory clausedignity and privacyPrevention of Electronic Crimes Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Muhammad Yousif, facing trial for offences under Sections 20, 21, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, read with Sections 383 and 506-B of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involves whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, despite allegations of digital blackmailing, sharing obscene and nude videos of the complainant, and extortion. The Sindh High Court held that the mere fact that an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause does not make bail a matter of right, particularly in heinous cyber-crimes that grossly violate the dignity, privacy, and modesty of individuals and severely impact society. The court laid down the principle that the grant of bail in such matters is a discretionary concession, and where tentative assessment reveals sufficient incriminating material connecting the accused to grave digital exploitation, bail must be refused notwithstanding the non-prohibitory nature of the offences.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right?
  • Can bail be refused in offences not covered by the prohibitory clause where the accused is prima facie involved in severe cyber exploitation and blackmailing?
  • Are offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 exclusively triable by Gender-Based Violence Courts under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 when no sexual assault or rape is alleged?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousif Jatoi vs The State2025 MLD 128 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-29
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesfurther inquirypolice highhandednessindependent witnessesprohibitory clausebail principles
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, charged under Section 9(3)(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 3000 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the allegations of police highhandedness, the absence of independent witnesses, and the claim that the accused was in illegal police custody prior to the registration of the FIR. The Court held that the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and granted bail. The Court reasoned that the reliance solely on police officials as witnesses, combined with the documentary evidence supporting the accused's claim of prior detention, created sufficient doubt. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that bail should not be withheld as punishment and that the investigation was complete, rendering continued incarceration unnecessary. The judgment reinforces the principle that where prosecution evidence relies exclusively on police officials, it requires deep scrutiny at trial, and that the absence of independent witnesses in public places necessitates modern evidentiary techniques like digital recording to ensure transparency.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of independent witnesses in a narcotics case involving police officials necessitate further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Can bail be granted in a case falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the reliance on police officials as sole witnesses sufficient to deny bail when there are allegations of prior illegal detention?
  • Does the failure to use modern devices to record search and seizure operations impact the credibility of police evidence in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf and others vs Ajab Khan and others2025 PHC 250 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-09-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf and 2 others vs The State2025 MLD 907 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-10-14
  post-arrest bailembezzlementfurther inquiryanticorruptionpunishment before judgmentdocumentary evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by three accused persons—a Chief Officer, a Cashier, and a Sweeper—facing charges of embezzlement, forgery, and illegal withdrawal of funds from a Municipal Committee development account. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the allegations of significant financial loss and the recovery of funds from one applicant's account. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that the embezzlement occurred over a five-year period during which multiple officers held the relevant administrative charge, making it difficult to isolate liability at the pre-trial stage, thus rendering the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court established that mere receipt of funds in a bank account does not constitute conclusive proof of criminal involvement without further evidence. The key principle laid down is that where the case relies on documentary evidence already in police possession, continued incarceration serves no investigative purpose and amounts to punishment before judgment, favoring the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere receipt of embezzled funds in a bank account constitute sufficient proof of criminal involvement to deny bail?
  • When multiple officials hold a position over a long period, can liability for embezzlement be fixed on one individual at the bail stage?
  • Does the fact that documentary evidence has already been seized by the prosecution justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis and another vs Chairperson Insurance Tribunal and two others2025 LHC 4368 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas Bajwa and another vs Chief Commissioner, ICT, Islamabad2025 IHC 432 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasir vs The State2025 PCRLJ 577 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-10
  criminal appealmurderattempted murderrelated witnessesocular evidencebenefit of doubtSection 161 CrPCappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of Mst. Salma and the attempted murder of Sajjad Mehmood. The core legal question is whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on related eye-witnesses and the absence of independent recovery witnesses. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt. It affirmed that the testimony of related witnesses is admissible and reliable absent proof of enmity or ill-will, and that minor discrepancies in evidence do not undermine the prosecution's case when the ocular account is consistent and confidence-inspiring. The Court further held that medical evidence corroborates the ocular account, and the delay in recording the statement of an injured witness under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not invalidate their testimony when their presence at the scene is established. The key principle laid down is that corroboration is a rule of caution, not law, and reliable eye-witness testimony alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of related eye-witnesses in the absence of proven enmity?
  • Does a delay in recording a witness statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically render the testimony unreliable?
  • Is corroboration of eye-witness testimony a mandatory rule of law or a rule of caution?
  • Does the absence of independent recovery witnesses necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen vs Govt. of Pakistan etc2025 LHC 4079 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen and others vs Muhammad Hanif Ghanchi s/o Ahmed2025 SHC 214 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs Naveed Aslam Khan Lodhi, etc2025 LHC 4571 · Lahore High Court · 2025-07-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs M/s. A.P. Moller - Maersk A.S. and another2025 SHC 352 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Khan vs Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence, (Civil Aviation Division), Govt. of Pakistan and others2025 LHC 2275 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Anjum and others vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC MPK 1596 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob (deceased) through Legal Heirs and others vs Saeeda Bibi (Deceased) through legal heirs and others2025 SCP 244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-02
  inheritancelimited ownertermination of limited estatesharai sharedeclaratory suitlocus standipurchaser rightsconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court heard a civil petition filed by the legal heirs of a subsequent purchaser (Defendant No. 10) challenging the concurrent findings of the trial court, appellate court, and High Court which decreed a declaratory suit filed by a daughter (Respondent No. 1) seeking her inheritance share in the legacy of her deceased father. The petitioners contended that the daughter was not the legitimate issue of the deceased, whereas a co-defendant brother had conceded her status, and the deceased widow had previously transferred the entire estate. The core questions related to the locus standi of a purchaser to dispute family lineage, the effect of termination of a widow's limited estate under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, and the scope of interference with concurrent findings. The Supreme Court held that the purchaser lacked locus standi to challenge legal and sharai relationships accepted by the principal heirs. The Court affirmed that upon termination of limited ownership, the property reverted to the last male owner's heirs, rendering any alienation by the widow valid only to the extent of her lawful share. Leave was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a subsequent purchaser of land have the locus standi to dispute the lineage or sharai status of legal heirs of the original deceased owner when the primary heirs have accepted that status?
  • What is the effect of the termination of a widow's limited ownership under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 on the alienation of the estate beyond her own sharai share?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by three lower courts be interfered with in the absence of misreading, non-reading of evidence, or material illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yahya and others vs Province of Sindh and others2025 CLC 151 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waseem vs The State and another2025 LHC 732 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-06
  narcoticscriminal appealimpeachment of witnessbenefit of doubtprior inconsistent statementacquittalcredibility of witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(1) of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997, for the possession of narcotics. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant contradictions in the testimony of a key prosecution witness. The Court held that the prosecution's case was rendered highly improbable because the witness's account of the events on the day of the occurrence was directly contradicted by his testimony in a separate, contemporaneous case, which was brought on record as evidence. The Court emphasized that under Article 151 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the credit of a witness may be impeached by proof of former inconsistent statements. Finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt due to these material discrepancies, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can the credit of a prosecution witness be impeached by proving former statements inconsistent with their current testimony?
  • Does a material contradiction in a witness's testimony regarding the timeline of events create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a previous statement of a witness be used for the purpose of contradiction during cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waseem vs Rizwana Kousar, etc2025 LHC 5566 · Lahore High Court · 2025-09-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waseem Khan, Naib Qasid and others vs Azad Govt. of The State of Jammu & Kashmir through Chief Secretary Azad Jammu & Kashmir, having his office at New Secretariat Muzaffarabad and others2025 PLJ AJ&K 115 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Waseem and 7 others vs Director General Sindh Building2025 CLC 428 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waqas, Mst. Rimsha Bibi vs The State, etc2025 LHC 1052, 2025 PCRLJ 841, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 375 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-13
  circumstantial evidenceextrajudicial confessionlast seen evidencebenefit of doubtDNA evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court against the appellants for the murder of the complainant's mother under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, specifically last-seen evidence, extrajudicial confession, and DNA analysis. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution’s case was fundamentally flawed. The court found the last-seen evidence inconsistent and improbable, the extrajudicial confession lacked corroboration and was not promptly reported, and the DNA evidence was unreliable due to the significant delay in recovering and analyzing the blood-stained items, by which time biological degradation had occurred. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case, the benefit of that doubt must accrue to the accused as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence when the chain of events is inconsistent?
  • Does a significant delay in the forensic analysis of blood-stained evidence render DNA reports unreliable?
  • Is an extrajudicial confession sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the benefit of doubt accrue to the accused as a matter of right when the prosecution's case is based on improbable circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waqas vs Chairman NADRA, etc2025 IHC 488 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-24
  master and servantnon-statutory ruleswrit petition maintainabilityNADRA employeesremoval from serviceterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner, a Data Entry Operator and later Junior Executive at the National Database & Registration Authority (NADRA), challenged orders removing him from service for alleged illegal processing of registration tokens without observing standard operating procedures. He filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking reinstatement with back benefits. The Islamabad High Court examined the preliminary question of maintainability, specifically whether NADRA's service regulations are statutory in nature. Relying on settled precedents of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Court held that the NADRA Employees Service Regulations are non-statutory, having been framed by the Authority under Section 45 of the NADRA Ordinance rather than by the Federal Government. Consequently, the relationship between NADRA and its employees is governed by the principle of master and servant, rendering a constitutional petition under Article 199 incompetent for the enforcement of terms and conditions of service. The Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the termination or removal of an employee of the National Database & Registration Authority (NADRA)?
  • Are the service regulations of the National Database & Registration Authority (NADRA) statutory or non-statutory in nature?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to the employment relationship between the National Database & Registration Authority (NADRA) and its employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wajid vs The State2025 SCP 212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-15
  circumstantial evidenceretracted confessionlast seen evidencecommutation of death sentencemitigating circumstanceshomicidal asphyxiaArticle 40 Qanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard an appeal by the appellant assailing the judgment of the Sindh High Court, which had confirmed his conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a five-and-a-half-year-old minor girl, while acquitting him of rape under Section 376. The core legal questions pertained to whether a conviction for murder carrying capital punishment could be sustained entirely on circumstantial evidence and a retracted judicial confession, and whether mitigating circumstances warranted a reduction in the quantum of sentence. The Court held that the prosecution established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence comprising credible last-seen testimony, the appellant's voluntary and corroborated judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, recovery of the victim's dupatta under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and consistent medical evidence. However, noting prolonged death cell confinement exceeding a decade, minor evidentiary inconsistencies, and the uncorroborated rape allegation, the Court partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the conviction but commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction and capital punishment be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if an unbroken chain of incriminating facts is established?
  • Whether a retracted judicial confession recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can form the basis of a murder conviction when corroborated by independent evidence?
  • Can a court accept the inculpatory parts of a confession that align with established facts while rejecting uncorroborated or inconsistent portions?
  • Does prolonged confinement on death row combined with minor prosecution inconsistencies constitute a sufficient mitigating ground to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Uzair Shaikh vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2025 SHC 200 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Uzair Bin Rafi vs The State and other2025 LHC 5326 · Lahore High Court · 2025-08-05
  post-arrest bailpre-arrest bail cancellationvaluable securityforgerydishonored chequesprohibitory clausecriminal breach of trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application by the main accused, Muhammad Uzair Bin Rafi, and a petition for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to two co-accused, Raja Danish and Asif Ali, arising from an FIR involving allegations of fraud and dishonored cheques. The core legal questions were whether the accused were entitled to bail given the allegations of forgery and whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the co-accused was legally sustainable. The court held that the main accused was not entitled to bail, as the evidence established prima facie involvement in forgery and financial fraud. The court further held that a cheque constitutes a "valuable security" under Section 30 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and its forgery attracts the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court dismissed the main accused's bail plea, cancelled the pre-arrest bail of co-accused Raja Danish due to his complicity, but maintained the pre-arrest bail of co-accused Asif Ali, finding his case required further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does a cheque constitute a 'valuable security' under Section 30 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the forgery of a cheque attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be cancelled if the accused is found to be a privy to the crime and fails to establish mala fide on the part of the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Uzair Anwar and others vs FoP through Secretary Ministry of Interior GoP & others2025 IHC 574 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Uzair Anwar & 2 others vs FoP through Secretary Ministry of Interior GoP & others2025 IHC 574 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs The State2025 YLR 857 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-10-13
  murdercapital punishmentjudicial confessionocular testimonymitigating circumstanceunproven motivedelay in FIRballistic report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for the murder of his parents and sentencing him to death under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency and credibility of ocular testimony from interested witnesses, the voluntariness and evidentiary value of a judicial confession recorded under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the implications of delayed First Information Report registration, and the impact of unproven motive and flawed weapons recovery on sentencing. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through trustworthy ocular accounts, medical evidence, and a voluntary judicial confession, notwithstanding doubts regarding the weapon recovery and ballistic reports. However, the court ruled that the failure to prove the alleged motive, coupled with uncertainty regarding the immediate triggers of the incident, constituted a mitigating circumstance. Consequently, the High Court maintained the conviction but altered the sentence from death to imprisonment for life, dismissing the appeal with modifications and answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for a capital charge can be sustained solely on the testimony of interested eyewitnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Under what conditions can a judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered voluntary and used for conviction?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a specific motive serve as a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • What is the evidentiary impact of sending crime empties and the alleged crime weapon together to the forensic laboratory after a considerable delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs The Federation Of Pakistan, Etc2025 IHC 136 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs Muhammad Yousuf & Others2025 SHC KHI 2293 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2025 IHC 454 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Farooqui vs Abdul Hafeez2025 SHC KHI 2182 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umair vs National Accountability Bureau & others2025 SHC KHI 2135 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-29
  service lawremoval from serviceregular inquiryfact-finding inquirynatural justicedue processconstitutional petitiondisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Assistant Director at the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), challenged his removal from service following allegations of inefficiency and misconduct regarding missing sensitive documents. The core legal question was whether the respondent could impose a major penalty of removal from service based solely on a "fact-finding inquiry" without conducting a formal, regular inquiry, and whether this violated the principles of natural justice and Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that a fact-finding inquiry is merely a preliminary stage to gather information and is not legally equivalent to a regular inquiry. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned removal and appellate orders, directing the petitioner's reinstatement with back benefits. The Court established that when an employee denies allegations involving factual disputes, the authorities are duty-bound to conduct a regular inquiry, allowing the accused to cross-examine witnesses and present a defense. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of due process and the right to a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is a fact-finding inquiry legally equivalent to a regular inquiry for the purpose of imposing a major penalty?
  • Does the dismissal of a public servant without a regular inquiry, when allegations are denied, violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Can a court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 interfere with disciplinary proceedings if the inquiry process is flawed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail Thakur vs Asia Insurance Company Limited2025 LHC 2812 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Touheed vs The State2025 MLD 618 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-18
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaydelay in trialmurderdacoitycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant Muhammad Touheed sought post-arrest bail in crime number 1354 of 2021 registered under sections 302, 324, 394, 109 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Orangi Town Police Station, primarily on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial under Section 497(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court examined the case diaries and noted that while there were delays attributable to the complainant's counsel and the trial court, there were also contributory delays caused by the defence, including applications for transfer of the case and absences of co-accused or defence counsel. Viewing the matter holistically and finding that the statutory delay was not exclusively free from contributory factors by the defence or that the mandatory threshold for release without fault was fully met at this juncture, the court declined to grant post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay. The bail application was dismissed, but the trial court was directed to conclude the trial within three months on a day-to-day basis with strict conditions regarding adjournments, and liberty was granted to the applicant to repeat his bail application after two months.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay under Section 497(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the delay is contributed to by both sides?
  • Can bail be granted on the basis of statutory delay if the accused or his counsel share responsibility for the protracted trial?
  • What directions may a High Court issue to ensure the expeditious conclusion of a trial when dismissing a post-arrest bail application on statutory delay grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Taufeeq Khanani and another vs The State2025 SHC 756 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs Jubilee Life Insurance2025 CLD 53 · Insurance Tribunal, Lahore · 2024-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs Additional Sessions Judge-Iii Islamabad (East), etc2025 IHC 470 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tanveer Tannu vs The State, etc2025 LHC 4537 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-26
  chain of custodycontrol of narcotic substancescharas recoverybenefit of the doubtchemical examiner reportsafe transmissioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the alleged possession of 1700 grams of Charas. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether an inordinate and unexplained delay in dispatching or transmitting the recovered narcotic samples to the forensic laboratory breaks the chain of safe custody, rendering the chemical report unreliable. The court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the safe custody and unbroken chain of transmission of the samples, noting a significant delay without plausible explanation. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, establishing the principle that a break in the chain of custody of narcotic substances vitiates the forensic report, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples to the forensic laboratory break the chain of custody?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be sustained when the safe custody of the recovered substance is doubtful?
  • What is the effect of a broken chain of custody on the evidentiary value of a Punjab Forensic Science Agency report?
  • Is the prosecution bound to prove the safe transmission of contraband from the place of recovery to the testing laboratory beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Talha Nasir vs Yasir Khan2025 PHC 166 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Talha Ammar Khan & 18 others vs Board of Governors, Sadiq2025 LHC 4989 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir Hayat and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 MLD 941 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman Ghouri and 4 others vs Federation of Pakistan and 32025 SHC KHI 1589 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Sulaiman Khan vs Learned Guardian Judge-II, Lahore and 22025 LHC 5183 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Subhan vs Ibrar Khan2025 PHC 172 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sohail vs Jamshed Mahmood Raza alias Jami and 2 others2025 P Cr. L J 837 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-26
  criminal revisionelectronic evidencemodern devicesSection 540 CrPCdefamationadmissibility of evidencefair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges an order of the trial court dismissing an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought to produce a USB containing a video as evidence in a defamation case. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the production of modern electronic evidence at a belated stage of the trial. The High Court held that the trial court's refusal was unjustified, emphasizing that courts are duty-bound to decide cases on merits by allowing all relevant evidence. The Court affirmed that under Articles 46-A and 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, evidence generated by modern devices is admissible. Furthermore, the Court established that an application under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should not be dismissed summarily merely on grounds of delay or allegations of filling lacunae, especially when the evidence is essential for a just adjudication. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the applicant was permitted to produce the USB for forensic analysis.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court allow the production of evidence via modern devices under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 even at a belated stage?
  • Is a USB containing a video recording admissible as evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Should an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be dismissed solely on the ground that it is filed to fill a lacuna in the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State2025 SHC 344 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-13
  unnatural offencesodomyDNA evidencehostile witnessminor witness competencyattempt versus commissionbenefit of the doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II/Gender Based Violence Court, Sukkur, convicting the appellant under Section 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Order 1979. The prosecution alleged that the appellant committed an unnatural offence against a 13-14 year old minor and was apprehended at the scene. The core legal questions involved evaluating the contradictory testimonies of the hostile complainant (the victim's father), the minor victim, and an eyewitness, alongside the probative value of negative DNA evidence and medical reports. The Sindh High Court held that material contradictions between the victim's statement asserting an attempt and the eyewitness's account of completion, coupled with a negative DNA report exonerating the appellant from sodomy and an unverified allegation of intoxication, created reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that where prosecution evidence suffers from major infirmities, conflicting stances among material witnesses, and lack of forensic corroboration, the benefit of the doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, leading to his acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a hostile witness testimony in a criminal trial when the witness is the father of the victim?
  • How does a negative DNA report impact the prosecution's case in charges of sexual or unnatural offences?
  • What are the essential legal ingredients required to distinguish between an attempt to commit an unnatural offence and its actual completion?
  • Can a conviction for intoxication under Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Order 1979 be sustained in the absence of credible forensic and procedural compliance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State and another2025 LHC 3697 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-12
  Anti-Terrorism Actsectarian hatredproscribed organizationstatutory interpretationnoscitur a sociiscriminal convictionpossession of material
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the Appellant under Section 11-G of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, following his acquittal under Section 9 of the same Act. The core legal question was whether the mere possession of sectarian material inside a concealed envelope constitutes 'carrying' an article associated with a proscribed organization under Section 11-G, and whether such possession alone suffices to establish membership or support. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction. It held that the term 'carries' in Section 11-G, when interpreted through the principle of noscitur a sociis, requires public presentation or visible association rather than mere passive possession. The Court established that 'carries' under Section 11-G does not encompass possession in a concealed manner; it necessitates conduct that is visible or suggestive of support for a proscribed organization. Furthermore, criminal liability under this provision requires evidence of public display or circumstances raising reasonable suspicion of affiliation, which was absent here. The Court emphasized that statutory terms derive their specific meaning from their context and associated words.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'carries' in Section 11-G of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, include the mere passive possession of prohibited material in a concealed manner?
  • Can a conviction under Section 11-G of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, be sustained solely on the basis of possessing material associated with a proscribed organization without evidence of public display or intent?
  • Does the principle of noscitur a sociis apply to the interpretation of the word 'carries' within the context of Section 11-G of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Brohi vs The State2025 SHC LAR 1242 · Sindh High Court
  reasonable doubtcriminal appealrecovery memochain of custodyanti-terrorismforensic analysischance witnessacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions of the appellants by an Anti-Terrorism Court for offenses related to the possession of explosive substances and illegal arms. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the evidence presented. The High Court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions regarding the place and manner of recovery, the tools used for digging, and the credibility of the witnesses. Furthermore, the court noted that the joint recovery memo was inadmissible, the chain of custody for forensic samples was not established, and the forensic reports were delayed without explanation. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, creating reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The court reaffirmed the principle that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must accrue to the accused as a matter of right, and that a single circumstance creating such doubt is sufficient to discredit the prosecution's entire case.

  Questions settled

  • Is a joint recovery memo admissible in evidence when it fails to specify which accused led to the discovery of the items?
  • Does a failure to establish the safe custody and transmission of forensic samples invalidate the forensic report?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when prosecution witnesses provide contradictory testimony regarding the place and manner of recovery?
  • Is the testimony of a chance witness reliable without strong corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sibtain Mirza and another vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 PLJ Karachi 100 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoaib Palijo & Ors vs Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC KHI 665 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Ejaz Rana and another2025 IHC 370 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif s/o Faiz Muhammad vs The State2025 SHC 234 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-06
  inherent jurisdictionc class reportpolice reportinvestigation officermedico-legal certificatequashing of ordercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate approving a 'C' class cancellation report filed by the Investigation Officer in respect of an FIR registered under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of a petition under Section 561-A against a magistrate's administrative order accepting a police cancellation report, and the legality of an investigation conducted without incorporating vital medical evidence or case property details. The Sindh High Court held that an order passed by a magistrate dealing with a police report under Section 173 is administrative in nature and thus not amenable to revisional jurisdiction, making an application under Section 561-A maintainable. The Court ruled that the investigation was flawed and contrary to law and police rules due to the omission of the final medico-legal certificate and case property details. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by a magistrate accepting a police cancellation report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is administrative or judicial in nature?
  • Can a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be maintained against an order of a magistrate approving a 'C' class police report?
  • Is a magistrate bound by the opinion of the investigating officer regarding the falsehood or truth of a case in a police report?
  • What are the legal consequences of an investigating officer failing to incorporate a final medico-legal certificate and case property details in the police report?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shamraiz vs Police Training School Through Its Commandant, etc2025 IHC 146 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakeel and others vs Additional District Judge, Faisalabad2025 SCP 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  dowry recoverynon-joinder of partieswrit jurisdictioncertiorariFamily Courts Act 1964appreciation of evidencesupervisory jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a family suit for the recovery of dowry articles, where the petitioners challenged the decree on grounds of non-joinder of a necessary party—specifically the plaintiff's husband—and alleged improper appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the objection regarding non-joinder was waived as it was not raised at the earliest opportunity. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the husband was not a necessary party because the cause of action for the recovery of dowry articles lay against the petitioners. Regarding the evidentiary challenge, the Court affirmed that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is supervisory in nature, limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or illegalities, and does not extend to re-evaluating or re-weighing factual findings made by subordinate courts. The judgment reinforces that the Family Courts Act of 1964 establishes an inquisitional system where jurisdiction is defined by the subject matter rather than the identity of the parties, and that appellate interference in factual findings is strictly limited.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of non-joinder of a necessary party be raised for the first time in a constitutional petition?
  • Is the husband a necessary party in a suit for the recovery of dowry articles filed against third parties?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to re-weigh evidence when exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Is the jurisdiction of a Family Court determined by the identity of the parties or the nature of the subject matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaikh Alamgir and others vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1835 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-03
  pre-arrest bailbailable offencessurety amountcancellation of bailoutraging modestyfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by applicants Muhammad Shaikh Alamgir, Munir, and Nabeel Bengali seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 276 of 2024 registered under Sections 506, 354, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Brigade, Karachi, concerning allegations of outraging modesty, misbehavior, and threats to withdraw a separate murder case. The trial court had earlier recalled its bail confirmation order due to the applicants' failure to furnish an enhanced surety amount. The Sindh High Court evaluated the principles governing surety amounts, noting that excessive surety operates as a refusal of bail, and observed that the offences under Sections 354 and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 are bailable, carrying an indefeasible right to bail. The Court held that bail in bailable offences is a right and cannot be cancelled once granted, and that the case against the applicants required further inquiry with malafide not ruled out. Consequently, the High Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether excessive surety amounts imposed by a trial court amount to a refusal of bail?
  • Does an accused have an indefeasible right to the grant of bail in bailable offences?
  • Can bail once granted in a bailable offence be subsequently cancelled?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when malafide on the part of the complainant cannot be entirely ruled out?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahzada alias Shahzado vs The State, etc2025 SHC KHI 1080 · Sindh High Court
  robberydacoitydeadly weaponalteration of convictionquantum of sentenceillegal armscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellants for offenses relating to robbery, dacoity, and illegal possession of arms. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether the essential ingredients of Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code were satisfied by the evidence on record, warranting the stringent minimum sentence prescribed thereunder. The Sindh High Court held that since no injury or hurt was caused to any person during the commission of the offense, the ingredients for an offense under Section 397 were not attracted, and the conviction ought to be altered to the lesser offense of robbery under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The court laid down the principle that where the use of a deadly weapon does not result in the causing of grievous hurt, attempted death, or injury, and the statutory prerequisites of Section 397 PPC are absent, the conviction must be modified to Section 392 PPC, with due consideration given to mitigating circumstances regarding the quantum of sentence and the period already undergone by the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained when no injury or hurt has been caused to any person during the commission of the crime?
  • Whether an offense lacking the explicit statutory ingredients of Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code should be converted to Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Is a reduction of sentence permissible under mitigating circumstances where the accused persons are young and have already undergone a substantial portion of their imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid Iqbal vs Gopal Das2025 SHC 390 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahbaz s/o Muhammad Umar vs The State2025 SHC 604 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-04
  post-arrest baildisclosure statementco-accusedinadmissible evidencefurther inquirycriminal procedureAnti-Terrorism Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused facing charges under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, arising from an FIR involving robbery and firing at Rangers officials. The core legal question was whether the applicant could be denied bail when the prosecution's case against him rested solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused made to police during interrogation. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail. The court established the principle that, pursuant to Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, a confession or disclosure made to a police officer is inadmissible as evidence against an accused. Given the absence of direct evidence linking the applicant to the crime and the fact that his implication was based entirely on inadmissible co-accused statements, the court determined that the applicant's guilt required further inquiry. Additionally, noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the court granted bail subject to surety.

  Questions settled

  • Is a disclosure statement made by a co-accused to a police officer admissible evidence against an accused person?
  • Does the implication of an accused solely on the basis of a co-accused's disclosure constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can an accused be granted post-arrest bail when the investigation is complete and no physical custody is required?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahbaz alias Honey, Hamza Irshad vs The State, etc, Muhammad Shahbaz alias Honey, etc2025 LHC 934, 2025 MLD 982, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 397 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-12
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidencechance witnesssafe custody of weaponacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(B) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies in the ocular evidence, the status of the eyewitnesses as chance witnesses, the failure to establish the safe custody of the recovered weapon, and the lack of proof regarding the alleged motive. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions, particularly regarding the timing of the incident, the presence of witnesses, and the chain of custody for forensic evidence. Emphasizing that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must accrue to the accused as a matter of right, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is inconsistent, witnesses are unreliable, and the chain of custody for incriminating evidence is broken, the prosecution fails to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Is mere absconsion of an accused sufficient proof of guilt to sustain a conviction?
  • Does the failure to prove the safe custody of a recovered weapon vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution witnesses are established as chance witnesses and their testimony contains material contradictions?
  • Is a motive for a crime required to be proven when the ocular evidence is otherwise unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs The State, etc2025 LHC 3828 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-23
  production of documentssummoning of recordcounter casescross versionsessions trialmagisterial trialcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the order of the trial court summoning the judicial record of a cross-case arising from the same incident. The core legal questions involved whether a trial court is empowered under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon records from another court at any stage of the trial, and whether such summoning amounts to a transfer of proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that a trial court possesses wide powers under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon any document or record deemed necessary or desirable for the just determination of a trial, at any stage, regardless of whether it supports the prosecution or the defence. The Court further clarified that summoning such record does not constitute a transfer of a criminal case, and reiterated the established legal principle that where counter-cases are pending before courts of different classes, the magisterial trial should await the conclusion of the Sessions trial to avoid conflicting decisions. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the summoning of judicial record from another court by a trial court amount to a transfer of a criminal case?
  • At what stage of an inquiry or trial can a court exercise its power under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon documents or records?
  • Can a trial court summon a document under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if it supports the defence rather than the prosecution?
  • What is the proper procedure to be adopted when counter-cases arising from the same occurrence are pending before courts of different classes?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar Ketaria vs Ehtesab Bureau, Azad Jammu and Kashmir2025 PLC (C.S.) 446 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-07-11
  contractual appointmenttermination of servicecontract appointment policywrit jurisdictionleave to appealservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed in limine a writ petition filed by a contractual employee of the Ehtesab Bureau. The petitioner, a Technical Expert Revenue (B-18), had his contract terminated before its expiry date without a show-cause notice. The core legal question was whether the termination of a contract employee, governed by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Contract Appointment Policy, 2006, was lawful when effected without assigning reasons but upon payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice. The Supreme Court held that the termination was valid, as the appointment was explicitly subject to the terms of the 2006 Policy, which permits termination by either side upon one month's notice or payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof, without requiring reasons. The Court affirmed that contractual employees are bound by the specific terms of their employment policy, and the authority acted within its legal rights. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, finding no question of law or public importance warranting interference with the High Court's dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contract employee be terminated before the expiry of their contract term without assigning reasons?
  • Does the termination of a contract employee under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Contract Appointment Policy, 2006, require the issuance of a show-cause notice?
  • Is the payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice sufficient to validate the termination of a contract employee under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Contract Appointment Policy, 2006?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar (deceased) through legal heirs etc vs Mst. Anwar2025 LHC 3427 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarfraz vs The State and another2025 LHC 5342 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-27
  pre-arrest bailcancellation reportfurther investigationtransfer of investigationpolice ordermagistrate endorsement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether further investigation can lawfully be carried out after a case cancellation report has been prepared by the investigating officer and endorsed by the Magistrate, and whether the transfer of an investigation is provisional or definitive. The Lahore High Court held that once a cancellation report is prepared and approved by the competent Magistrate, the matter stands extinguished and no further investigation can be carried out while that order holds. The court further held that the transfer of an investigation is a definitive measure and does not revert to the previous officer. Consequently, finding that no criminal case legally existed in the field, the pre-arrest bail petition was dismissed as not pressed upon withdrawal by the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether further investigation can lawfully be carried out after a cancellation report is prepared by the investigating officer and approved by the Magistrate?
  • Does the transfer of an investigation of a criminal case from one investigating officer to another operate as a final measure or merely a provisional one?
  • Can a criminal case be legally considered in the field after a magistrate has endorsed a case cancellation report?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarfraz vs Secretary, Specialized Healthcare and Medical2025 LHC 3760 · Lahore High Court
  civil servantservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional petitionabatement of proceedingsdisciplinary inquiryterms and conditions of servicestop-gap arrangement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged an order initiating a fresh inquiry and a personal hearing notice through a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court. The petition was initially entertained as a stop-gap arrangement because the Punjab Service Tribunal was non-functional at the time. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Tribunal became functional, raising the question of whether the petition should abate or continue. The Court held that the constitutional bar under Article 212 is absolute and inflexible, and once an administrative tribunal becomes functional, pending constitutional petitions regarding terms and conditions of service abate by operation of law. The Court further held that allegations of mala fides or the absence of a departmental appeal against an interlocutory inquiry order do not confer writ jurisdiction, as exclusive competence vests in the Service Tribunal to examine disciplinary proceedings upon a final order. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition entertained as a stop-gap arrangement due to a non-functional service tribunal abates once the tribunal becomes functional?
  • Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan exclude High Court jurisdiction over interlocutory disciplinary proceedings of a civil servant?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against the initiation of a departmental inquiry on the ground that no departmental appeal lies against such a notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sareer and others vs Muhammad Ameer and others2025 PHC 252 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-09-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saqib vs Mst. Saima Rahim & Others2025 SHC KHI 2110 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salik Nukhrich and others vs The State and others2025 SHC 438 · Sindh High Court
  misuse of authorityaccountability referencerevenue record mutationcivil-criminal distinctionburden of proofmens realand title dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against the conviction of appellants by an Accountability Court for corruption and corrupt practices regarding the alleged fraudulent transfer of land and subsequent housing project development. The core legal question was whether the appellants' actions, specifically the mutation of land records by a revenue official and the subsequent land development by a private individual, constituted "misuse of authority" or corruption under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, given that the underlying property title dispute was already subject to civil litigation. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It found that the revenue official's actions were not proven to be corrupt, especially as they were upheld by higher revenue forums in quasi-judicial proceedings. The Court emphasized that civil disputes regarding land title do not automatically constitute criminal offences under the Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that the prosecution must discharge the initial burden of proof before any presumption of guilt can be raised against an accused, and that procedural irregularities in revenue matters do not equate to criminal misuse of authority without evidence of mens rea or illegal gain.

  Questions settled

  • Does a procedural irregularity in the maintenance of revenue records automatically constitute the offence of misuse of authority under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can the National Accountability Bureau initiate criminal proceedings regarding a land title dispute that is already pending before a civil court?
  • Is a presumption of guilt under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, applicable before the prosecution has established a prima facie case?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce available witnesses create an adverse presumption against the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State and another2025 PHC 202 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Principal Secretary To The Prime Minister Of Pakistan, Prime Minister Secretariat, Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 486 · Islamabad High Court
  pro forma promotionterms and conditions of servicejurisdiction of service tribunalconstitutional petitioncivil servantselection postdiscriminatory treatment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired civil servant, filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking pro forma promotion to Basic Pay Scale 21 with all consequential benefits and reference of his case to the committee under Fundamental Rule 17. The petitioner alleged discriminatory treatment, claiming that another officer similarly situated was granted relaxation and promoted despite having less than one year of service remaining before retirement. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition under Article 212(2) of the Constitution, arguing that matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Islamabad High Court held that the petition was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution as it related to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, and that promotion is not a vested right. The court further held that eligibility matters fall exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal and that the petitioner's case was factually distinguishable from the cited precedent. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as non-maintainable and devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition filed by a civil servant regarding promotion and terms and conditions of service in view of the bar contained under Article 212?
  • Is promotion to a higher post or grade considered a vested right of a civil servant?
  • Whether the question of eligibility and quantification for promotion falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Whether a claim of discrimination regarding promotion can override the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Khan vs Syed Athar Hussain and 4 others2025 CLC 823 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Channa and another vs The State2025 SHC 754 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajjad and others vs Ramesh and others2025 PLD Peshawar 59 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajid Farooqui & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC KHI 2153 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajid and 04 others vs The State and another2025 LHC 4520 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-06
  framing of chargecriminal revisiondacoitygraver offenceprima facie casetrial court procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jahanian, which had accepted a criminal revision filed by the complainant. The complainant had sought an amendment to the formal charge framed by the trial Magistrate in a case involving offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in framing charges for less serious offences when the contents of the F.I.R. and the investigation report prima facie disclosed graver offences. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Additional Sessions Judge correctly directed the trial court to frame charges for more serious offences (Sections 395, 455, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860). The Court established the principle that charges must be framed based on the prima facie averments in the F.I.R., witness statements, and the investigation report. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that where allegations support graver offences, the trial court is obligated to frame charges for those more serious offences to avoid procedural complications later in the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court required to frame charges for more serious offences if the F.I.R. and investigation report prima facie disclose them?
  • Can an accused be convicted for a graver offence if the original charge was framed only for a less serious offence without subsequent amendment?
  • Does the framing of a charge for a graver offence based on the same family of offences constitute a legal error?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs The State thr. A.G. Islamabad and another2025 SCP 29, 2025 SCMR 629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-03
  pre-arrest bailleave to appealfurther inquirymala fidecross-versioncrime empty
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner-complainant against an order of the Islamabad High Court granting pre-arrest bail to the respondent-accused in a case involving charges under Sections 324 and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance. The complainant argued that a child was injured, intent was evident, the High Court ignored essential requirements including complainant mala fides, and the petition was incompetent following dismissal by the Sessions Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal. The Court held that the High Court rightly noted the absence of crime empties, the prior recovery of the alleged weapon, and that the cross-version brought the case within further inquiry. The Court affirmed that mala fide need not always be established by direct evidence but can be inferred from circumstances, and the dismissal or non-competency of a prior bail petition before a lower court does not bar an independent evaluation and grant of pre-arrest bail by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a pre-arrest bail petition by a Sessions Court preclude an accused from seeking pre-arrest bail before the High Court?
  • Can mala fide for the purpose of granting pre-arrest bail be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a case rather than proved by direct evidence?
  • Does a High Court err in granting pre-arrest bail where no crime empty is recovered and the case requires further inquiry based on a cross-version?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Muhammad Hassan and another2025 SHC 400 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq (deceased) through LRs vs Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh etc2025 SCP 265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  lis pendenspre-emptionbona fide purchasertransfer of propertysuit restorationpendente lite
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a dispute over property pre-emption. The appellant filed a suit for possession through pre-emption, which was contested by the respondent. During the litigation, the respondent sold the suit land to third parties (respondents No. 2-4). The core legal question was whether the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, binds a purchaser who acquires property during the pendency of a pre-emption suit, even if the suit was briefly dismissed for non-prosecution and subsequently restored. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of lis pendens is fully applicable to pre-emption suits, and a purchaser pendente lite acquires title subject to the final outcome of the litigation, effectively stepping into the shoes of the transferor. The Court clarified that restoration of a suit relates back to the original filing, maintaining the continuity of the lis. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the trial court's decree in favor of the appellant, affirming that bona fide purchasers are bound by the final decree regardless of notice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to a purchaser who acquires property during the pendency of a pre-emption suit?
  • Is a purchaser of property during the pendency of a suit bound by the final decree even if they are a bona fide purchaser without notice?
  • Does the restoration of a suit after dismissal for non-prosecution maintain the continuity of lis pendens for transfers made during the interim period?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sachal Mahar vs P.O.Sindh & Ors2025 SHC LAR 2242 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saadullah etc vs Province of Punjab through District Collector, Mandi Bahauddin2025 LHC 3988 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan vs The State and another2025 LHC 846 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-11
  post-arrest bailretrospective operation of statutessubstantive lawvested rightselectronic financial fraudbailable offencesstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves post-arrest bail petitions concerning alleged electronic financial fraud under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the amendment to Section 43 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016, which converted previously bailable offences into non-bailable ones, applies retrospectively to pending cases, and whether the right to bail in bailable offences constitutes a substantive or procedural right. The Court held that the amendment is substantive in nature because it impairs the accused's vested right to liberty and immediate release. Consequently, the amendment operates prospectively and does not apply to offences committed prior to its promulgation. The Court affirmed that bail in bailable offences is an indefeasible vested right. Finding no evidence of potential abscondence or tampering, and noting the offences fell outside the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court allowed the bail petitions, establishing that substantive legal changes cannot be applied retrospectively to impair existing rights without clear legislative intent.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right to bail in a bailable offence a substantive right or merely a matter of procedure?
  • Does an amendment converting a bailable offence into a non-bailable offence apply retrospectively to offences committed before the amendment's promulgation?
  • Under what circumstances does a statute operate retrospectively versus prospectively regarding vested rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan and another vs The State and others2025 LHC 2033 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-24
  quashing of orderadditional evidencesummoning of witnessinquisitorial role of courtfair trialcriminal revisionpolice challan
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenges an appellate order that set aside a trial court's decision permitting a material witness whose name was omitted from the police challan's list of witnesses to testify under Section 540 of the Code. The core legal question revolves around the scope of the trial court's powers to summon additional witnesses and whether the provisions governing prosecution evidence are mandatory to secure the ends of justice. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of Section 244 of the Code are mandatory and that trial courts possess an inquisitorial duty under Section 540 of the Code and Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 to summon any witness at any stage if their evidence is essential for a fair and just decision, irrespective of delay or the absence of an application by the parties. The petition was accepted, restoring the trial court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 requiring the magistrate to take all prosecution and defence evidence are mandatory?
  • Can a trial court summon a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 whose name was inadvertently omitted from the police report's list of witnesses?
  • Is a formal application by either party a mandatory prerequisite for invoking the powers of the court under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does delay in the conclusion of a trial act as a bar to the summoning of essential evidence for a just decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Learned District & Sessions Judge, (East) Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 542 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Arshad Ali, etc2025 LHC 363 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Kayyani vs Inspector General of Police, Islamabad and Others2025 IHC 306 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz alias Baddi, Mst. Ameeran Mai , The State etc vs The State2025 LHC 2100 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan, The State vs Muhammad Ramzan, The State2025 LHC 3644 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-20
  murder referencechance witnessdying declarationbenefit of doubtcriminal appealocular evidenceFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the complainant's father. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the alleged delay in reporting the crime, the status of the eyewitnesses as 'chance witnesses,' and the lack of corroborative evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed. The court found that the FIR was registered with unexplained delay, the eyewitnesses were chance witnesses whose presence at the scene was not credibly established, and their conduct was unnatural. Furthermore, the court rejected the purported dying declaration, found the medical evidence inconclusive regarding the identity of the assailant, and noted that the recovery of the weapon was procedurally defective. The court established the principle that when the prosecution's ocular account is suspect and uncorroborated by reliable medical or forensic evidence, and the motive is weak or unsubstantiated, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be accepted without a plausible and convincing explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does an injury statement prepared by the police constitute a valid dying declaration under the law?
  • Is the failure to match blood groups on recovered weapons with the victim's blood fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the FIR is registered with an unexplained delay and the ocular account is found to be unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan, Saeed Akhtar, Mst. Nawaz Bibi vs The State & another2025 LHC 2184 · Lahore High Court
  witness competencymentally impaired victimprocedural accommodationsfair trialcriminal appealremandexpert testimonyaccess to justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for the abduction and rape of a mentally impaired victim. The core legal question concerns the trial court's procedure in declaring the victim incompetent to testify without expert medical evaluation. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court committed a serious procedural lapse by failing to explore whether the victim could communicate through alternative means or expert-assisted methods. The court emphasized that mental impairment does not automatically preclude a witness from testifying. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and remanded the case, directing the trial court to summon a forensic psychologist or psychiatrist under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to assess the victim's capacity and the feasibility of recording her testimony. The judgment establishes that courts must actively seek expert guidance and provide reasonable procedural accommodations for disabled victims to ensure their right to a fair trial and access to justice, as guaranteed by Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and international obligations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court declare a mentally impaired witness incompetent to testify without seeking expert medical or psychiatric opinion?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 require courts to provide procedural accommodations for disabled victims?
  • Is a trial court obligated to explore alternative means of communication before excluding testimony from a witness with cognitive or intellectual disabilities?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan, Jahangir vs The State etc2025 LHC 915 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-11
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymedical evidenceGlasgow Coma Scalecriminal liabilityFIR delaytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for petitioners accused of murder and assault under Sections 302/324/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case connecting the petitioners' acts to the deceased's death, given conflicting medical evidence regarding the cause of death—specifically cardiopulmonary arrest—and the absence of observed internal injuries. The Court held that because the medical evidence regarding the cause of death and the decline in the Glasgow Coma Scale is inconclusive without expert testimony, and given discrepancies between the victim's initial statement to the Medicolegal Officer and the subsequent FIR, the petitioners' criminal liability cannot be tentatively assessed at this stage. Consequently, the Court established the principle that where the medical cause of death is ambiguous and requires trial-stage expert examination, and where the prosecution's narrative suffers from material inconsistencies, the case warrants the grant of bail on the basis of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the medical cause of death and the prosecution's narrative regarding injuries warrant the grant of bail on the basis of further inquiry?
  • Can the court tentatively assess criminal liability when the medical evidence regarding the cause of death requires expert testimony at trial?
  • Is a case for further inquiry established when the initial history provided by the victim to the medical officer contradicts the subsequent FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State2025 SCP 71, 2025 SCMR 762 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-20
  murderconfession to policecircumstantial evidenceadmissibility of FIRadverse inferencemedical evidenceacquittalcapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard an appeal against a death sentence awarded under Section 302(b) PPC for the alleged murder of the appellant's wife. The prosecution's case rested primarily on a First Information Report (FIR) purportedly based on the appellant's own confession to the police and the subsequent recovery of the body from his residence. The Court observed that the FIR lacked the appellant's signature or thumb impression and was categorically denied by him during his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. The Court held that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (QSO), 1984, and an FIR is not substantive evidence unless proved by its maker. Furthermore, the recovery of the body was deemed unreliable due to the non-association of independent witnesses and the failure to produce the landlord as a witness, prompting an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the QSO. Finding the chain of circumstantial evidence broken and the motive unproven, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State and others2025 YLR 1104 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-21
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtchance witnessdelay in FIRdelayed post-mortemdishonest improvementscriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant handed down by the trial court for the murder of his wife under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular evidence from related and chance witnesses, the effect of delays in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem, the significance of delayed weapon recovery, and the application of the principle of benefit of doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to unexplained delays in the FIR and autopsy, unreliable and interested eyewitnesses who made dishonest improvements, failure to examine a material witness drawing an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and uncorroborated belated recovery. The court laid down that the prosecution must stand on its own legs, and multiple circumstances creating doubt must be resolved by extending the benefit of doubt to the accused, leading to the acceptance of the appeal, acquittal of the appellant, and answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem examination cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of interested and chance witnesses whose presence at the scene is not established?
  • What is the legal effect of withholding a material witness under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does the failure of an accused to discharge the onus under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 cure the inherent weaknesses and failure of the prosecution to prove its case?
  • Can a delayed recovery of a weapon of offense serve as substantive evidence to uphold a conviction without reliable direct evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State and another2025 LHC 626 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-18
  Drugs Act 1976Drug InspectorDistrict Quality Control Boardshow cause noticePunjab Drug Rules 2007search and seizureindependent witnessesbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This statutory criminal appeal under Section 31(7) of the Drugs Act 1976 was filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence passed by the Drug Court, Bahawalpur Division. The appellant had been convicted under Section 27(4) of the Drugs Act 1976 and Schedule III(1)(a) of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act 2012 for stocking and selling allopathic drugs without a licence, without warranties, and selling spurious alternative medicines. The High Court analyzed the initiation of prosecution and search/seizure procedure. The Court observed that the District Quality Control Board failed to properly serve a mandatory show cause notice under Rule 5(3) of the Punjab Drug Rules 2007 and held its meeting an hour earlier than specified in the notice. Furthermore, the Drug Inspector violated Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, Section 18 of the Drugs Act 1976, and Schedule V of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act 2012 by failing to join independent local witnesses during search and recovery. Granting the benefit of doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to serve a show cause notice under Rule 5(3) of the Punjab Drug Rules 2007 vitiates the prosecution initiated under the Drugs Act 1976?
  • Whether the statutory requirement of joining independent local witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to searches and seizures conducted by a Drug Inspector?
  • Does the non-compliance with statutory procedure for search and seizure under Section 18 of the Drugs Act 1976 entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan son of Mukhtar Ahmed vs The State2025 F.S.C 2 · Federal Shariat Court · 2025-05-15
  Qazf OrdinanceLiandissolution of marriagedivorce deedpaternity disputecriminal revisionframing of charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, which dismissed the petitioner's application for framing an amended charge under Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved whether proceedings under 'Lian' via Section 14 of the Qazf Ordinance are maintainable when the marital tie no longer subsists, and whether Section 14 can form the basis for framing a criminal charge. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 14 applies only when a subsisting marriage exists between the parties, and because the petitioner had already divorced the respondent prior to the proceedings, 'Lian' was inapplicable. Furthermore, the court held that Section 14 is merely procedural and cannot form the basis for framing a penal charge. The key principles laid down are that a written divorce deed effective from its execution terminates the marital status precluding subsequent 'Lian' proceedings, and that charges must be framed under penal provisions rather than procedural sections.

  Questions settled

  • Are proceedings of 'Lian' under Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 maintainable when the marriage between the parties has already been dissolved?
  • Can Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 form the basis for framing a criminal charge against an accused?
  • When does a written divorce deed pronounced by a husband become effective in Islamic law and Pakistani jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rahzeb Abbasi vs Raj Muhammad Abbasi & Another2025 IHC 150 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique, etc. vs Mst. Jamshed Bibi, etc2025 LHC 4314 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State2025 YLR 169 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-06-26
  criminal appealcommon intentionvicarious liabilitySection 342 statementbenefit of the doubtmurder convictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution established the appellant's common intention and whether the trial court's failure to put incriminating evidence to the accused during his examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, vitiated the conviction. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove any overt act or common intention, noting that co-accused with identical roles had previously been acquitted. Furthermore, the Court found the trial court's reliance on conjectures and its failure to confront the accused with incriminating evidence during his Section 342 statement fatal to the conviction. The key principles laid down are that vicarious liability under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, requires proof of an overt act in furtherance of a common intention, and that failure to put incriminating evidence to an accused during a Section 342 statement renders such evidence inadmissible for conviction. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained if incriminating evidence was not put to the accused during his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime sufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused based on the same set of evidence necessitate the acquittal of the remaining accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Mst. Suriya Bibi2025 LHC 1180, 2025 PLJ Lahore 552 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 PLC 38 · Lahore High Court · 2024-08-29
  old-age pensionEOBIstatutory interpretationbeneficial statuterounding off serviceproviso interpretationadministrative circularwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition concerned the entitlement of an insured person to old-age pension under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution Act, 1976. The petitioner, having served 14.75 years, was denied pension on the ground that Section 22(1)(b) of the Act required a minimum of fifteen years of contribution. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's service period of 14.75 years could be rounded up to 15 years based on the Schedule to the Act. The High Court held that the Schedule explicitly provides for rounding off, treating a period of six months or more as one full year, and this stipulation is in-built in the calculation of old-age pension. The Court clarified that the provisos to Section 22(1) should be construed as substantive provisions providing qualifications, and the Act, being a beneficial statute, must be interpreted to advance its objectives in favor of employees. An administrative circular cannot override or retrospectively clarify unambiguous statutory provisions. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the payment of old-age pension.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service period of 14.75 years be rounded up to 15 years for old-age pension eligibility under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution Act, 1976?
  • How should the rounding off stipulation in the Schedule to the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution Act, 1976 be interpreted in conjunction with Section 22(1)(b) of the Act?
  • Can an administrative circular override or clarify unambiguous provisions of a statute, especially retrospectively?
  • How should a beneficial statute like the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution Act, 1976 be construed?
  • What is the function and interpretation of a proviso when it provides qualifications rather than exceptions to a main statutory provision?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and others vs Nawab Arbab Abdul Zahir Khan and others2025 CLC 404 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-12-08Read full judgment →