Pakistan Case LawLatest 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 Ajmal vs The State2025 MLD 533 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges the order of the Sessions Judge, Gwadar, which dismissed an application for the release of a vehicle on superdari pending trial. The core legal question was whether a vehicle involved in a traffic accident, where the driver is charged with rash and negligent driving, constitutes property 'used for the commission of an offence' under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby justifying its continued detention by the police. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the trial court's order, and directed the release of the vehicle to the petitioner upon the provision of surety. The Court held that a vehicle involved in a traffic accident is not 'used for the commission of an offence' in the statutory sense. Detaining such property at a police station serves no evidentiary purpose and causes unnecessary deterioration and hardship. Furthermore, in the absence of rival claimants, the property should be released to the last possessor or the owner to prevent financial loss and ensure proper custody.
Questions settled- Does a vehicle involved in a traffic accident constitute property 'used for the commission of an offence' under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should a vehicle be released on superdari to the last possessor when there are no rival claimants?
- Is the continued detention of a vehicle at a police station justified when it serves no purpose other than causing the deterioration of the property?
- Muhammad Ajmal vs Gulab Khan and others2025 SHC 384 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ajmal etc vs Mst. Noor Khatoon, etc2025 SCP 86, 2025 SCMR 851 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the concurrent findings of the Family Court and the Appellate Court regarding a suit for recovery of dower. The respondent, a widow, claimed ownership of land as dower based on an agreement executed by her late husband. The petitioners challenged the Family Court's jurisdiction, arguing the matter required a Civil Court, and contested the validity of the agreement. The Supreme Court addressed whether a Family Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of dower based on a private agreement executed by a husband during his lifetime. The Court held that the Family Court acted within its jurisdiction under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, as dower is a specified matter under the Act. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting the respondent successfully proved the agreement through credible oral and documentary evidence, while the petitioners failed to substantiate their claims of forgery. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does a Family Court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of dower based on an agreement executed by a husband during his lifetime?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the execution of a document be challenged in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Is a suit for recovery of dower based on an agreement regarding immovable property triable by a Family Court?
- Muhammad Ahsaan vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1711 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The High Court of Sindh considered a criminal jail appeal along with a murder reference concerning the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein he was sentenced to death for the brutal murder of his wife under the pretext of honour. The prosecution case rested on the appellant's disclosure to police officers at a police post, leading directly to the discovery of the deceased's body at his residence, corroborated by the recovery of blood-stained clothes, weapons (a stick, brick, and stone), and medical evidence. The core legal questions pertained to the admissibility and weight of an extra-judicial confession made before police officials when substantiated by independent recoveries under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the viability of a sudden provocation defense, and whether mitigating circumstances existed to commute the capital sentence to life imprisonment. The High Court affirmed the conviction and confirmed the death penalty, holding that the confession was admissible to the extent of discoveries made and fully corroborated by forensic and medical evidence. The Court held that snatching a phone does not constitute grave and sudden provocation, and the barbaric nature of honour killings warrants the standard capital penalty without leniency.
Questions settled- Can an admission or disclosure made by an accused while in the presence of police officials be relied upon if it leads to the discovery of the dead body and crime weapons under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Does an accused's act of snatching a ringing mobile phone from their spouse legally suffice to establish the defense of grave and sudden provocation?
- Whether the commission of a brutal murder under the pretext of 'honour' provides any mitigating grounds to commute a death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to life imprisonment?
- Muhammad Ahmed vs The State & another2025 SHC KHI 1913 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ahmed Shaikh & others vs Shabbir Ahmed2025 SCP 98 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a High Court revision order that reversed the concurrent findings of two lower courts in a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the appellants. The suit was originally decreed in favor of the appellants on the basis of a registered sale deed, and the respondent's first appeal was dismissed. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, allowed the revision without offering cogent reasons for disregarding the registered instrument or the concurrent factual findings. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent failed to establish title or seek specific performance for alleged payments made to the appellants' father. Furthermore, the respondent's separate suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed was also dismissed concurrently. The Supreme Court held that a revisional court cannot arbitrarily ignore registered title deeds or recharacterize a suit for possession into an administration suit without legal basis. Consequently, the High Court's order was set aside and the judgments of the trial and appellate courts were restored.
Questions settled- Can a High Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC reverse concurrent findings of fact without providing reasoned justification?
- Does payment of part or full consideration for immovable property bestow title without seeking specific performance?
- Can a revisional court convert or treat a suit for possession and mesne profits into an administration suit without supporting pleadings?
- Muhammad Ahmed Khan & another vs Federation of Pakistan & another2025 SHC KHI 2158 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners approached the Sindh High Court through a constitutional petition seeking a declaration of eligibility for pro-forma promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and the release of corresponding back benefits. The petitioners had served on officiating charges as LDCs for over a decade and had previously obtained a favorable order in earlier constitutional proceedings. However, during the pendency of that litigation, they reached superannuation and retired, leading to the removal of their names from the promotion and regular employee lists. They contended that keeping them in temporary positions despite fulfilling all criteria was arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to established service law precedents. The Assistant Attorney General sought dismissal of the petition without filing comments. Relying on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to pro-forma promotion and related benefits, disposing of the constitutional petition in terms of the apex court's ruling in Director General Intelligence and Investigation, F.B.R. v. Muhammad Aslam Khan (2020 SCMR 1846).
Questions settled- Whether civil servants serving on officiating charges for an extended period are entitled to pro-forma promotion after retirement?
- Whether the retirement of an employee during the pendency of litigation bars the grant of pro-forma promotion and consequential financial benefits?
- Whether prolonged retention of an employee on a temporary or officiating basis without regularization violates established service law principles?
- Muhammad Ahmad vs District Judge, Pakpattan, etc2025 LHC 3687 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Afzal Zahid, Ex-Additional District & Sessions Judge vs Lahore High Court, Lahore through its Registrar2025 LHC 123, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 669 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal challenges the removal of an Additional District & Sessions Judge from service following allegations of corruption and misconduct. The core legal questions were whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by double jeopardy and whether the penalty of removal was proportionate to the proven misconduct. The Court found that while the specific charge of receiving illegal gratification was not conclusively proven, the appellant's reputation for corruption and poor integrity was established through unrebutted reports from the District & Sessions Judge and adverse entries in his Performance Evaluation Reports. The Court rejected the plea of double jeopardy, noting that the subsequent inquiry was based on distinct reports and administrative decisions. Holding that the penalty of removal was disproportionate given the circumstances, the Court converted the penalty to compulsory retirement, citing precedents emphasizing the need to maintain integrity in public service while ensuring proportionate disciplinary measures. The key principle laid down is that where specific evidence of corruption is insufficient for removal, but an officer's reputation for integrity is demonstrably compromised, compulsory retirement serves as a balanced measure to protect the public interest and maintain judicial discipline.
Questions settled- Does a subsequent inquiry into allegations of misconduct, following the withdrawal of a prior complaint, constitute double jeopardy?
- Can a penalty of removal from service be converted to compulsory retirement if the misconduct is proven but the penalty is deemed disproportionate?
- Is a judicial officer's reputation for corruption a valid basis for disciplinary action when specific allegations of bribery remain unproven?
- Muhammad Afzal vs Zahora Bibi & others2025 SHC KHI 2046 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Afzal vs The State and others2025 YLR 941 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concern the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account, the impact of significant delays in FIR registration and post-mortem examination, and the effect of withholding natural witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the eye-witnesses to be 'chance witnesses' whose presence was doubtful, noting their unnatural conduct during the incident and material contradictions in their testimonies. Furthermore, the court observed a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence, and noted the negative DNA results. Applying the principle that the prosecution must prove its case without gaps, the court drew an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order 1984 for the failure to produce natural witnesses. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and declined to confirm the death sentence.
Questions settled- Does a significant delay in the registration of an FIR and the conduct of a post-mortem examination cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
- Can the testimony of 'chance witnesses' be relied upon without independent corroboration of their presence at the crime scene?
- What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to produce natural witnesses of an occurrence?
- Does a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries on the deceased warrant the acquittal of the accused?
- Muhammad Afzal vs The State & another2025 LHC 4795 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge directing the petitioner to hand over possession of one room in the disputed property to the complainant as an interim relief under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether an interim order for restoration of possession under Section 7 of the Act can be passed prior to the commencement of trial. The Lahore High Court held that the phrase "during the trial" in Section 7(1) of the Act is a condition precedent, and a trial in a criminal case commences strictly with the framing of the charge, not upon the taking of cognizance or issuance of summons. Since the impugned interim order was passed before the charge was framed, it suffered from material illegality and procedural irregularity. Furthermore, the court held that directing the handover of "one room" without specific identification or independent access was vague and improperly delegated judicial functions to the police. The revision was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.
Questions settled- When does a trial commence in proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 for the purpose of granting interim relief under Section 7?
- Can a court grant interim relief of restoration of possession under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before the framing of a charge?
- Does an order directing the handover of an unspecified portion of a property without clear identification constitute an improper delegation of judicial functions to the police?
- What are the principal conditions for the invocation and application of Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
- Muhammad Afzal vs Judge Family Court, etc2025 LHC 495 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Afzal and others vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB)2025 PHC 240 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Adnan vs Salah-Ud-Din2025 SCP 44, 2025 SCMR 653, 2025 CLD 647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent instituted a suit for recovery under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 based on a promissory note, which was decreed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court. The petitioner challenged the same through a civil petition before the Supreme Court. The core legal question revolved around the validity and proof of the promissory note under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the necessity of its attestation, and the legal effect of evasive denials and contradictory stances in the written statement. The Supreme Court held that the promissory note fulfilled all essential ingredients under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and did not require attestation under the Qanun-e-Shahdat, 1984, while evasive denials and self-contradictory pleas in the written statement are fatal to a defendant's case. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- What are the essential ingredients of a promissory note under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?
- Does a promissory note require attestation under Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahdat, 1984?
- What is the legal effect of an evasive denial in a written statement under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Can a defendant raise self-contradictory pleas in defense during a recovery suit based on a negotiable instrument?
- Muhammad Adil son of Muhammad Haroon vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1484 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Muhammad Adil, in Crime No. 76/2024 registered at Police Station Nazimabad, Karachi, for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of real estate fraud, forgery, and cheating. The core legal question is whether an accused who has previously misused pre-arrest bail, breached solemn judicial undertakings, submitted forged documents in court, and absconded is entitled to the discretionary relief of post-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant's continuous abuse of the judicial process, active participation in white-collar economic fraud, and post-crime conduct completely disentitle him to equitable relief. The key principles laid down are that recovery is not the sole criterion for bail in economic crimes; that an accused's conduct, bad faith, and flouting of court orders are paramount considerations; and that white-collar offences involving fraudulent real estate transactions and forged documents warrant a strict judicial response.
Questions settled- Whether an accused who has breached solemn undertakings and absconded can claim post-arrest bail as a matter of right?
- Does the absence of further recovery from an accused warrant the grant of bail in cases of white-collar economic crime and forgery?
- Whether a dispute arising from a real estate transaction involving forged documents and fraudulent inducement is purely civil in nature?
- Does the submission of forged documents in court during bail proceedings disentitle an accused from receiving equitable relief?
- Muhammad Adeel vs The State2025 IHC 166 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 1130 grams of charas. The core legal question addressed is whether a lenient view and reduction of sentence to the period already undergone is warranted where the appellant is a first offender, has no prior criminal record, and has served a significant portion of his sentence. The Islamabad High Court held that while the conviction on merits is not challenged and is maintained, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, keeping the fine and default sentence intact, in view of mitigating circumstances and precedents. The key principle laid down is that courts may exercise judicial discretion to depart from standard sentencing norms and reduce sentences in narcotics cases for first offenders who have undergone substantial incarceration, provided cogent reasons are recorded.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court reduce a narcotics convict's sentence to the period already undergone when the conviction itself is not challenged?
- Is a first offender entitled to a lenient view in sentencing under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- May a court depart from standard sentencing norms in narcotics cases upon recording cogent reasons?
- Muhammad Adeel vs Province of Punjab & 03 others2025 LHC 2193 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Abid vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa thr. Secretary2025 SCP 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition challenges a judgment of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal upholding the removal of a civil servant from service on charges of wilful absence. The core legal question was whether a departmental inquiry into allegations of misconduct satisfies the requirements of due process and natural justice when the accused is denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the removal order and the Tribunal's judgment. The Court remanded the matter for a de novo inquiry, directing that the petitioner be granted a fair opportunity to defend himself. The Court held that the right to cross-examine witnesses in departmental inquiries is an inalienable and essential component of natural justice and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution. Denying this right renders the inquiry proceedings flawed, as cross-examination is the primary tool for testing the veracity of evidence and exposing potential bias or dishonesty in witness testimony. Consequently, authorities must ensure that departmental inquiries are conducted with strict adherence to these procedural safeguards.
Questions settled- Is the right to cross-examine witnesses an essential requirement in a departmental inquiry against a civil servant?
- Does the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in a departmental inquiry violate the principles of natural justice?
- Can a removal from service order be set aside if the underlying departmental inquiry failed to provide the accused a fair opportunity to defend himself?
- Muhammad Abid Hussain vs The State and another2025 SCP 63, 2025 SCMR 721 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his post-arrest bail application by the Lahore High Court in a case involving the recovery of 1100 grams of heroin under Section 9(1)6(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Supreme Court considered contentions regarding the absence of private witnesses in violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the failure of the police to record the recovery process via modern devices despite prior judicial directives and the provisions of Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Converting the petition into an appeal, the Court held that given the stringent punishments prescribed and the lack of independent or video evidence to corroborate the police testimony, reasonable grounds existed for further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt. The Court emphasized that modern device recordings are crucial safeguards against false implications in serious narcotic cases and that pre-trial incarceration of an innocent person cannot be adequately compensated. The Supreme Court consequently set aside the High Court's order and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Questions settled- Does the failure of police to make a video recording of a narcotics recovery justify granting post-arrest bail?
- Whether the non-association of private witnesses during a narcotics search weakens the prosecution's case at the bail stage?
- Can evidence obtained through modern devices under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 be considered a crucial safeguard against false police implication?
- What is the standard of proof required in cases carrying stringent punishments under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Muhammad Aamir Nawaz vs Messrs Raza Ur Rehman and Brothers and another2025 PTD 43 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-10-31Read full judgment →
- Mudassar Malik vs Federation of Pakistan & another2025 IHC 228 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-10Read full judgment →
- Mudassar Ali and another vs Nazir Ahmed Khan and others2025 IHC 422 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-27Read full judgment →
- Mubashir Raza vs Idris Ali, etc2025 IHC 522 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-09Read full judgment →
- Muazzam Ali Goraya etc vs Member (Judicial-I) etc2025 LHC 323 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-21Read full judgment →
- Mst.Fatima Parveen and another vs Muhammad Younus2025 SHC 264 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zulkaif Tahoora and 2 others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary2025 CLC 495 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zoya and another vs Province of Sindh and others2025 PLJ Karachi 106 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zoobia Naz vs Province of Sindh, through Chief Secretary and others2025 CLC 272 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zarina vs Zakaullah Khan & Ors2025 SHC 144 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zainab Bibi vs Muhammad Rizwan and another2025 YLR 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-09-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Wajiha Fatima & another vs Syed Badar Abbas Jafri & others2025 SHC KHI 1382 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Tasneem Kausar vs Govt. of the Punjab, etc2025 LHC 5211 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Taqiya Begum vs Intikhab & others2025 PHC 42 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Tahira Altaf vs Mian Ghulam Dastgeer2025 LHC 293 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Tahira Akhtar vs The Chancellor, Women University Multan/Governor2025 LHC 3591 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Sultan Zarina and others vs Govt. of K.P and others2025 PHC 274 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-08-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sidra vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC SUK 531 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sidra Hameed etc vs Syed Abdul Mateen2025 SCP 25, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 310, 2025 PLJ SC 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicants filed a Civil Miscellaneous Application before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking the transfer of a guardianship petition and pending family appeal from the Family Court and District Court in Islamabad (East) to the Family Court/District Court in Karachi (East). The respondent contested the application, arguing that Section 25A(2b) of the Family Courts Act 1964 does not apply to custody matters under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, and that Section 4A of the latter restricts transfers to inter-district transfers by High Courts. The Supreme Court held that Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over custody and guardianship matters under Section 5 of the Family Courts Act 1964, which overrides the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. Such matters constitute 'proceedings' under Section 25A(2b) of the Family Courts Act 1964. Furthermore, using its constitutional powers under Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to do complete justice, the Court confirmed its authority to transfer proceedings to and from the Islamabad Capital Territory. The application was accordingly allowed, transferring the cases to Karachi East for the welfare of the mother and minors.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction under Section 25A(2b) of the Family Courts Act 1964 to transfer guardianship and custody proceedings between provinces?
- Does the Family Courts Act 1964 override the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 regarding territorial jurisdiction in custody cases?
- Can the Supreme Court exercise its powers under Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to transfer proceedings to and from the Islamabad Capital Territory?
- Mst. Shireen @ Samina vs The State and others2025 SHC KHI 2109 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shehnaz Bibi vs Magistrate Ist Class, Sahiwal, and others2025 LHC 5492 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shazia, Mst. Tahira Mukhtiar, Mst. Noureen vs The Province of Sindh&2025 SHC HYD 2017 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Shamshad and others vs Abdullah Khokhar and another2025 SHC KHI 1645 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shama vs Said Amin Shah2025 PHC 144 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shaista Hameed vs Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), District Mianwali and 4 others2025 YLR 720 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shahida Parveen Jumani vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC SUK 2106 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a widowed daughter of a deceased retired civil servant, challenged the administrative decisions of the respondents declining her request for the re-grant of family pension. The respondents had rejected her claim on the ground that she was not dependent on her deceased father because she had an adult son aged over 21 years, relying on Rule 302(b)(6) of the Civil Service Regulations and a Finance Department circular. The High Court of Sindh held that Rule 302 of the Civil Service Regulations applies only to cases where civil servants are killed or injured while serving with military forces, and is inapplicable to ordinary retirements. Under Rule 4.10 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules 1963 (as amended in 2016), a widowed daughter is entitled to family pension for life or until remarriage. The Court ruled that administrative circulars cannot override statutory rules, and linking a woman's statutory pension rights to her dependency on a male relative is discriminatory, unconstitutional, and contrary to Islamic principles of independent personhood. The petition was allowed with costs.
Questions settled- Can an administrative circular or policy notification issued by the Finance Department override or restrict the statutory pension rights granted under the Civil Services Pension Rules?
- Whether the entitlement of a widowed daughter to a family pension under Rule 4.10 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules 1963 can be denied on the ground that she has an adult son?
- Does Rule 302 of the Civil Service Regulations apply to ordinary pension cases of civil servants who retired on superannuation and died of natural causes?
- Is linking a woman's statutory right to family pension to her dependency on a male relative constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Mst. Shaheen and another vs The State and others2025 PHC 126 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Saphooran through L.Rs vs Asif & Others2025 SHC KHI 2021 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a Larger Bench constituted to resolve conflicting views regarding whether petitions challenging orders passed by Additional District & Sessions Judges in Civil Revision Applications should be heard by a Single Bench or a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court. The Court examined the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court, which are adopted by the Sindh High Court, specifically Chapter IV-J, Volume V. The Court observed that these rules grant the Chief Justice the administrative discretion to determine the constitution of benches for specific categories of cases. Noting that the Chief Justice has historically exercised this power to assign various categories of cases—such as those arising under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act—to Single Benches, the Court held that the issue does not require judicial interpretation. Instead, it is an administrative matter. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition by referring the issue to the Chief Justice to consider issuing an administrative circular assigning such Civil Revision matters to Single Benches.
Questions settled- Does the determination of whether a matter should be heard by a Single Bench or a Division Bench fall under the administrative discretion of the Chief Justice?
- Are petitions challenging orders passed by Additional District & Sessions Judges in Civil Revision Applications required to be heard by a Division Bench by default?
- Does the Sindh High Court follow the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court regarding the constitution of benches?
- Mst. Sanobar Rizwan vs Mst. Naseera Begum2025 SHC 20 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sania Batool vs The State and another2025 MLD 339 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by a female accused in a case involving allegations of abduction, assault, and extortion under Sections 365-A, 292-A, 506(ii), 337, 170, 171, 342, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a female with a suckling infant, was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps and her personal circumstances. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting the lack of recovery of incriminating evidence, the absence of expert reports regarding digital evidence, and the fact that the investigation was complete. The Court emphasized that bail for women, as per the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is a rule rather than an exception, even in offences falling within the prohibitory clause. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed the principle that the welfare of a minor child is incompatible with jail life, and that bail is not a punishment but a mechanism to ensure the accused faces trial without unjustified incarceration.
Questions settled- Is a female accused with a suckling infant entitled to bail even in offences falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the presence of a suckling child in jail with the mother constitute a ground for granting bail?
- What are the exceptions that justify the refusal of bail to a female accused?
- Can bail be granted when there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed the offence, but sufficient grounds exist for further inquiry?
- Mst. Sana through lawful Attorney and another vs Shoaib Ismail and another2025 CLC 544 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Samrah Shear Rafeequi & Ors vs The State & others2025 SHC 222 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application challenges the orders passed by the lower courts dismissing the applicants' complaint filed under the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2013, on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction and failure to establish a prima facie case. The core legal question concerns whether a case of domestic violence was made out and whether the local courts possessed jurisdiction over acts allegedly committed abroad and during a prior foreign litigation period. The Sindh High Court held that no medical evidence supported the allegations of physical injuries, no complaints of domestic violence had been raised during earlier proceedings before the courts in California, and the attempt to convert family disputes into criminal litigation reflected ulterior motives. The court dismissed the application, establishing the principle that family litigation cannot be maliciously converted into criminal proceedings without verifiable prima facie evidence and proper jurisdictional grounding.
Questions settled- Whether a domestic violence complaint is maintainable when no medical evidence or prior allegations were raised in earlier foreign court proceedings?
- Does the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2013 extend beyond the Province of Sindh?
- Can family disputes be converted into criminal litigation without establishing a strong prima facie case?
- Mst. Samina Khalid vs Tariq Bashir etc2025 LHC 4920 · Lahore High Court · 2025-07-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Samina Bibi vs Abdul Khaliq and another2025 MLD 109 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-08-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Quetta, which confirmed the pre-arrest bail of the respondent in a murder case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the trial court erred by considering a plea of alibi at the bail stage and failing to appreciate the respondent's role as the prime accused. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition in limine. The Court held that there is no absolute rule prohibiting the consideration of an alibi plea during bail proceedings; rather, courts must exercise judicial mind to assess all material, including defense pleas, to ensure justice. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the criteria for granting bail and cancelling bail are distinct. Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the respondent misused the concession of bail, violated any conditions, or that the trial court's order was perverse or arbitrary, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order, affirming that the trial court acted in accordance with established legal principles.
Questions settled- Can a plea of alibi be considered by a court at the bail stage?
- What are the specific grounds required for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted?
- Is a revision petition maintainable when a specific provision for bail cancellation exists under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mst. Saima Bibi alias Shama vs The State2025 IHC 102 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case involving the recovery of 3600 grams of Charas from the petitioner, a female accused, registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a woman with a suckling baby in custody, is entitled to the concession of bail solely on the grounds of her gender and the presence of her child, despite the recovery of a significant quantity of narcotics. The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to bail. It reasoned that the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics prima facie connects the accused to the offense, and the mere presence of a suckling child does not override the serious nature of the crime or the statutory bars against bail in such cases. The Court emphasized that drug trafficking offenses often involve the exploitation of women and children as carriers, and courts must not allow such circumstances to be used as a lever for bail, particularly when the offense poses a threat to society.
Questions settled- Does the presence of a suckling baby with a female accused automatically entitle her to the grant of post-arrest bail in narcotics cases?
- Is a female accused involved in drug trafficking entitled to bail solely on the basis of her gender?
- Does the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics constitute a sufficient ground to invoke the statutory bar against bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Can the likelihood of repeating a narcotics offense be considered a valid ground for refusing bail to a female accused?
- Mst. Saima Amjad vs Ministry Of Interior Through Secretary Interior, Etc2025 IHC 276 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Safia Khanum and others vs Additional District Judge-II, East, Islamabad and others2025 IHC 380 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Safeen Akhtar vs Ehtesham and others2025 PHC 16 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated criminal judgment arose from two appeals filed by the complainant challenging the acquittal of the respondents/accused in a double-murder case registered under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal questions were whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused where preliminary investigation commenced prior to recording the FIR; whether the ocular testimony was contradicted by medical evidence and rendered doubtful by the presence of chance witnesses; and whether alleged abscondance or defective weapon recoveries could sustain a conviction. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the acquittals, finding that the investigating officer began inquiries before the FIR was registered, suggesting prior deliberation. The Court further noted substantial discrepancies between the ocular account and medical reports regarding the nature of the firearm wounds, cast doubt on the presence of the eyewitnesses, held that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive, and established that recoveries were deeply flawed. The Court reaffirmed that even a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Does conducting a preliminary inquiry or collecting evidence before the formal registration of an FIR render the prosecution's case doubtful?
- Can an ocular account contradicted by medical evidence regarding the nature of firearm injuries form the basis of a criminal conviction?
- Is an injured witness's testimony automatically entitled to full credence merely by virtue of sustaining injuries during the occurrence?
- Can the abscondance of an accused person independently serve as sufficient legal ground to sustain a conviction without independent corroborating evidence?
- What legal consequence arises when the prosecution sets up a specific motive for a murder but fails to prove it through cogent evidence?
- Mst. Sabran Bibi vs The State2025 SCP 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court heard an appeal arising from a petition filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 9(1)(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for alleged possession and sale of chars. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt in light of several evidentiary discrepancies and an unrebutted defense plea. The Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, finding that the alleged open-air recovery without any attempt to flee was inherently improbable, typical paraphernalia for selling narcotics was not recovered, and the site plan omitted crucial details. Furthermore, an unexplained four-day delay in sending samples for chemical analysis compromised sample integrity, unrebutted Call Data Records placed the seizing officers elsewhere, and prior substantiated misconduct by the same police station supported the appellant's defense. The Court held that benefit of reasonable doubt is a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether an unexplained delay in sending seized contraband samples for chemical analysis casts doubt on their integrity and authenticity?
- Whether unrebutted Call Data Records (CDRs) contradicting the presence of recovery officers at the place of occurrence entitle the accused to an acquittal?
- Whether the failure to recover selling paraphernalia or cite customers undermines an allegation of selling narcotics in an open public place?
- Whether an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a plausible defense narrative of police mala fide is substantiated?
- Mst. Rubina Kauser vs Addl. Sessions Judge etc2025 LHC 5248 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision was filed by the petitioner against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, which dismissed her private complaint. The petitioner had produced witnesses and documentary evidence including a medico-legal certificate and postmortem report to substantiate her allegations regarding an occurrence on 24.04.2023. The trial court dismissed the complaint primarily by relying on extraneous facts from a connected case and FIR, and by hearing the counsel of an unsummoned proposed accused at the preliminary stage. The Lahore High Court observed that a court cannot consider facts from connected matters unless properly brought on record in accordance with law, nor should it allow unsummoned proposed accused to contest a private complaint at the preliminary stage. Finding that the cursory evidence established sufficient grounds under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to issue process against the proposed accused and proceed with the trial.
Questions settled- Can a court rely on facts of a connected case that are not brought on record in due course of law to decide a private complaint?
- Can a proposed accused be allowed to contest a private complaint prior to the formal issuance of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C.?
- What is the standard of evidence required at the preliminary stage to justify the issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mst. Robina Akhtar vs Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice2025 IHC 416 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rehana Habib vs Ehsanullah and 2 others2025 CLC 792 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-09-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Razia vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1690, 2025 SHC HYD 1692, 2025 SHC HYD 1693 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, Mst. Razia, for the murder of her ten-year-old step-daughter, Baby Amna, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 34. The prosecution alleged the appellant and her husband jointly beat the child to death. While the husband was acquitted following a compromise with the legal heirs, the trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing her to life imprisonment. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence, the credibility of related eyewitnesses, and whether the appellant’s conviction remained sustainable despite the co-accused's acquittal. The High Court upheld the conviction, holding that the ocular evidence, corroborated by medical findings and the recovery of weapons at the appellant's instance, proved her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that Section 34 PPC establishes joint liability for acts done in furtherance of a common intention, and that a compromise with one co-accused does not negate the independent culpability of another. The judgment reinforces that witness relationship does not invalidate testimony absent proof of enmity, and that medical evidence consistent with ocular accounts strengthens the prosecution's case.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of a co-accused based on a compromise under Section 345(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle the remaining accused to acquittal?
- Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained based on the testimony of related witnesses in the absence of proof of enmity?
- Does the recovery of weapons at the instance of an accused provide sufficient corroboration to ocular evidence in a murder trial?
- Is the principle of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable where the co-accused has been acquitted via compromise?
- Mst. Razia Bibi, etc vs Zulfiqar etc2025 LHC 2880 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Razia Bib vs PTCL and others2025 SHC KHI 1374, 2025 SHC KHI 1457 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was instituted by the widow of a deceased employee of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), seeking monthly pension benefits, Benevolent Grant, and Group Insurance. The deceased employee had retired under the Voluntary Surrender of Service (VSS) scheme with less than 20 years of qualifying service and had accepted an additional Separation Bonus. The legal questions before the High Court were whether the petitioner was estopped from claiming monthly pension benefits after the employee had accepted the Separation Bonus, and whether the widow was entitled to Benevolent Grant and Group Insurance notwithstanding the defense of laches. The Sindh High Court partly allowed the petition. It held that the claim for monthly pension was precluded by the doctrine of estoppel and settled Supreme Court precedent, since the deceased had accepted the Separation Bonus designated for employees falling short of 20 years of qualifying service. However, the Court granted the Benevolent Grant and Group Insurance, holding that under the relevant statutory provisions, the widow is entitled for life to the Benevolent Grant since her husband died before age 70, and that statutory inaction in forwarding such claims creates a recurring cause of action not barred by laches.
Questions settled- Is an employee or their legal heir estopped from claiming monthly pension under a voluntary retirement scheme after having accepted a Separation Bonus meant solely for employees lacking the qualifying length of service?
- Does the failure or inaction of an employer to process and forward a widow's claim for statutory Benevolent Grant and Group Insurance give rise to a recurring cause of action?
- Can a constitutional petition claiming statutory welfare benefits like Benevolent Grant and Group Insurance be dismissed solely on the ground of laches?
- Is the surviving spouse of a retired employee who dies before reaching the age of seventy entitled for life to receive a Benevolent Grant under the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969?
- Mst. Rasheedan vs Abdul Sattar (deceased) represented through LRs, etc2025 LHC 5127 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ramzanu Bibi vs Ibrahim (deceased) through L.Rs, etc.2025 SCP 117, 2025 SCMR 955 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from the dismissal of the appellant's civil suit seeking a declaration of title and cancellation of a gift mutation concerning her inherited land. The core legal questions involved the standards of proof required to establish an oral gift, the burden of proof regarding fraudulent conveyances, the evidentiary value of fingerprint analysis, and the applicable period of limitation. The Court held that beneficiaries of a disputed oral gift mutation must discharge a threefold burden—pleading particulars, producing evidence, and persuading the court of the original transaction—and that failure to plead specific details regarding the gift and its voluntary nature invalidates the transaction. The Court further ruled that fingerprint comparison by an expert constitutes conclusive scientific proof to establish impersonation, and that a suit challenging a fraudulent mutation by a non-participating party is governed by Article 120 rather than Article 95 of the Limitation Act 1908 as a continuing right. The appeal was allowed and the suit decreed.
Questions settled- What is the nature of the burden of proof required to validate an oral gift of immovable property?
- Does a revenue mutation confer title to property or merely serve as an administrative record for fiscal purposes?
- Is Article 95 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable to a suit challenging a fraudulent mutation filed by a person who was not a party to the transaction?
- What is the evidentiary value of expert fingerprint analysis in civil cases involving allegations of impersonation and fraud?
- Mst. Rabia Parveen vs Chaudhry Muhammad Tariq etc2025 IHC 116 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Parveen Ara vs Muhammad Hanif and others2025 SCP 186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from an order of the Sindh High Court upholding the dismissal of a tenant's application for restoration of possession under Section 15-A of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The appellant had previously been evicted from a residential flat based on the landlord's personal bona fide need. Subsequently, the tenant sought restoration of possession and statutory penalties, alleging that the landlord failed to occupy the premises personally and instead inducted an employee. The core legal questions involved the interpretation of Section 15-A of the Ordinance, specifically regarding the landlord's obligation to occupy the premises for personal use within one year, whether housing an employee constitutes personal use, and the applicability of the Limitation Act 1908 to applications for restoration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that Section 15-A contains two distinct limbs prohibiting reletting or putting the premises to non-personal use within one year, and that housing an employee does not satisfy the requirement of personal occupation by the landlord or family. The Court further laid down that special laws exclude general limitation periods, and such applications are governed by the doctrine of laches rather than the residuary limitation period. The appeal was consequently allowed and the Rent Controller's order restoring possession was reinstated.
Questions settled- Whether housing an employee in premises vacated on the ground of personal bona fide need constitutes personal use under Section 15-A of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Does Section 15-A of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 impose a mandatory duty on a landlord to occupy the premises personally within one year of obtaining possession?
- Are applications for restoration of possession under Section 15-A of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 governed by the Limitation Act 1908 or by the principle of laches?
- Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to proceedings arising under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Mst. Nosheen Ali Nasir vs Additional Sessions Judge and others2025 LHC 4430 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from concurrent orders of the lower courts declining the petitioner's request to allow her injured brother, Husnain Ali Nasir, to record his evidence via video link in FIR No. 722/2022. The lower courts based their dismissal on the ground that Husnain was a proclaimed offender in two other criminal cases involving the same parties and had left the country. The core legal questions examined were whether a witness's testimony can be recorded via video link in criminal proceedings, and whether such testimony is permissible when the witness is a proclaimed offender in an unrelated case. The Lahore High Court held that modern technological advancements and statutory provisions permit video-conferencing for recording evidence where physical appearance is genuinely unfeasible due to medical reasons, subject to judicial discretion. Furthermore, the court held that competency to testify is governed exclusively by Article 3 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which does not disqualify a fugitive or proclaimed offender from testifying in another case. The petition was accepted and the impugned orders were set aside.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of a witness may be recorded through a video link in criminal proceedings?
- Whether such testimony may be recorded in one case even if the witness is a proclaimed offender in another?
- Does the status of a proclaimed offender render a person incompetent to testify under Article 3 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
- Can courts introduce additional disqualifications for witnesses beyond those exhaustively provided in statutory law?
- Mst. Nighat Manzoor vs The State2025 IHC 70, 2025 PCRLJ 931 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by a female petitioner accused of attempting to smuggle gold and jewelry through an international airport. The core legal questions were whether the possession of gold ornaments by a passenger who had not yet cleared immigration constitutes an attempt to smuggle under the Customs Act, 1969, and whether the petitioner, as a woman, is entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the prosecution's case was one of further inquiry because the petitioner had not yet crossed the point of no return in the departure process, and the investigation failed to substantiate the valuation of the gold or prove criminal intent. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail for women should generally be granted unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Court granted bail, establishing that mere possession of excess gold prior to immigration clearance does not automatically constitute an attempt to smuggle.
Questions settled- Does the possession of gold ornaments by a passenger who has not yet cleared immigration constitute an attempt to smuggle under the Customs Act, 1969?
- Is the prosecution required to substantiate the valuation of recovered goods to establish the quantum of sentence under the Customs Act, 1969?
- Under what circumstances should bail be refused to a woman under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mst. Nighat Bibi, Mst. Zuhra Bibi vs The learned Asj_Ex-Officio Justice of Peace (West), Islamambad, etc2025 IHC 562 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nighat Bano vs Public At Large and 3 others2025 CLC 462 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 384 of the Succession Act, 1925 challenged an order of the Additional District Judge-III, Khairpur, dismissing an application filed under Section 372 of the Act. The appellant, an unmarried retired government servant drawing her own pension, sought the transfer of the family pension of her deceased unmarried sister, who was also a retired government servant. The core question was whether an unmarried sister who possesses an independent regular source of income (her own pension) is entitled to receive the family pension of her deceased unmarried sister under the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 and the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's order. The Court held that dependency requires financial reliance rather than mere marital status. Following Supreme Court precedent, a claimant with an independent regular income is disentitled from drawing a family pension.
Questions settled- Whether an unmarried sister is entitled to receive the family pension of her deceased unmarried sister when she is already drawing her own personal pension as an independent source of income?
- Whether marital status alone is sufficient to establish financial dependency for the purpose of claiming family pension under the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963?
- Does acquiring an independent and regular source of income disentitle a surviving relative from claiming a family pension under civil service pension rules?
- Mst. Nayyab Abbas vs Additional District Judge, etc2025 LHC 4155 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasreen vs Gohar Ali and others2025 PHC 242 · N/A · 2025-07-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasreen Fatima vs Muhammad Abbas Khan etc2025 LHC 3167 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasreen Akhtar & Another vs Mst. Shairoon & Others2025 PHC 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naseem Akhtar vs Municipal Commissioner and Accounts Officer, Sukkur Municipal Corporation Sukkur2025 SHC SUK 2015 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naila vs Mehran Khan and others2025 SCP 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an appellate court's decree regarding the recovery of 11 tolas of gold ornaments in a family dispute. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, was justified in re-evaluating evidence and substituting its own findings of fact for those of the appellate court regarding the alleged snatching of the ornaments. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by substituting its views for those of the appellate court, as the appellate court is the final arbiter of facts. The Supreme Court emphasized that while the burden of proof regarding the snatching of the ornaments rested on the petitioner, the High Court should not have interfered with the appellate court's findings based on its own re-appraisal of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the matter to the appellate court for a fresh decision based on the existing evidence.
Questions settled- Can the High Court in writ jurisdiction substitute its own findings of fact for those of the appellate court?
- Is the appellate court the final arbiter of facts in a family suit regarding the recovery of gold ornaments?
- Does the burden of proof regarding the snatching of dower items rest on the plaintiff?
- Mst. Naila Shahbaz vs Mrs. Amna Ashfaq & others2025 SHC 108 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naila Irum vs OGDCL and another2025 IHC 450 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mujahida vs Alamgir2025 PHC 184 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Misbah Farooq etc vs M/s. Daewoo Pakistan Express Bus Service Ltd.2025 LHC 1065, 2025 PLJ Lahore 632 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mehwish Janvri vs 3rd Additional District Judge Larkana and another2025 SHC LAR 1456 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Maryam vs The State2025 YLR 909 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Mst. Maryam, who was charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2022, for the alleged possession of 1020 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail given the quantity of the narcotic recovered and the nature of the offense. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that at the bail stage, the lesser of the two potential punishments must be considered, and since the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is the rule rather than the exception. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the applicant's lack of a criminal record and her status as a woman as factors warranting leniency. The Court concluded that the case required further inquiry and granted bail subject to the provision of solvent surety, noting that these observations were tentative and would not prejudice the trial.
Questions settled- Does the possession of 1020 grams of charas fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should the lesser of two potential punishments be considered when determining bail eligibility?
- Is a female accused without a prior criminal record entitled to leniency in bail matters involving narcotic offenses?
- Mst. Mariam Butt vs Asad and 2 others2025 MLD 391 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Marayam vs The State, etc2025 LHC 3484 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves consolidated petitions for post-arrest bail filed by Mst. Mariyam and Imtiaz Hussain, who are accused in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the case against the petitioners required further inquiry, falling within the purview of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. This conclusion was based on the absence of corroborative evidence, the lack of recovery of the alleged weapon of offense, and the medical officer's opinion that the cause and manner of death were undetermined. Furthermore, the investigation indicated that Mst. Mariyam did not participate in the act. The Court emphasized that bail is a procedural relief and not a punishment. Citing the principle that it is better to err in granting bail than in refusing it, the Court affirmed that liberty is a precious constitutional right, ultimately granting bail to both petitioners subject to furnishing bail bonds.
Questions settled- Does a case where the cause of death is undetermined and evidence is lacking require further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be withheld as a form of advance punishment?
- Is the identification of an accused through an identification parade sufficient to deny bail when other corroborative evidence is missing?
- Mst. Majida Parveen vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Water2025 YLR 45 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mai Pathani vs SHO P.S Patni Sukkur & others2025 SHC 172 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application challenges the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sukkur, whereby the applicant's application seeking permission to record her second statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was dismissed due to the absence of exceptional circumstances. The core legal question is whether a witness or complainant is entitled to record a second statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without demonstrating exceptional circumstances. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned order contained valid and cogent reasons and suffered from no illegality or infirmity warranting constitutional or discretionary interference. The court dismissed the application, affirming the principle that recording a successive statement requires exceptional justification.
Questions settled- Can a party record a second statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without exceptional circumstances?
- Whether the High Court will interfere with an order refusing to record a second section 164 statement when valid reasons are assigned?
- Mst. Madiha Bano vs Senior Superintendent of Police Complaint Cell South2025 SCP 104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's application under Sections 22A and 22B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against university administration officials. The petitioner alleged mental torture, humiliation, and blackmail following the termination of her admission at IBA Karachi. The Ex-Officio Justice of Peace dismissed the application, relying on police inquiry reports that indicated the petitioner was ineligible for the program, had misbehaved, and that her admission was terminated due to poor academic performance. The High Court upheld this dismissal, finding no illegality. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in dismissing the petition, affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower forums that no cognizable offence was disclosed. The Court held that the petitioner's grievance stemmed from academic termination rather than criminal conduct, and maintained that she remained at liberty to pursue other appropriate civil or administrative remedies.
Questions settled- Whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is justified in refusing to direct the registration of an FIR under Section 22A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the dispute is academic or administrative and does not disclose a cognizable offence?
- Can concurrent findings of the Justice of Peace and the High Court regarding the absence of a cognizable offence be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of any patent illegality?
- Mst. Khawar Kifayat alias Khawar Saeed vs Chaudhary Muhammad Faisal2025 SHC 374 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Khalida Bibi vs Naeem Khan & others2025 SCP 221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by the Peshawar High Court dismissing a constitutional petition against the dismissal of a suit for recovery of dower and maintenance allowance. The core legal question revolves around whether the non-production of marginal witnesses of a Nikah Nama is fatal to a suit for recovery of dower when the marriage and execution of the Nikah are admitted. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that where the relationship of husband and wife is admitted and the execution of the Nikah is not denied, the non-production of marginal witnesses is not fatal, as a registered Nikah Nama carries a presumption of truth under the law. The Court laid down the principle that a mere verbal denial of the Nikah Nama during testimony without supporting evidence carries no legal value, and that appellate and constitutional courts must properly adjudicate all issues framed by the trial court.
Questions settled- Is the non-production of marginal witnesses of a Nikah Nama fatal to a suit for recovery of dower when the marriage and execution of the Nikah are admitted?
- Does a mere verbal denial of the execution of a Nikah Nama during testimony without supporting evidence carry legal value?
- Is a Nikah Nama registered under the Muslim Family Law Ordinance a public document carrying a presumption of truth under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order?
- Mst. Khadija Bibi, etc vs Judge Banking Court, etc2025 LHC 3264 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kausar Mai vs SHO, etc2025 LHC 1007 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Lahore High Court through a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the recovery of two alleged detenues from the illegal detention of a Station House Officer. During the proceedings, it was disclosed that one of the detenues had unfortunately died during a police encounter after being formally arrested, while issues regarding the non-maintenance of the manual station daily diary (roznamcha) and improper police record-keeping emerged. The core legal questions revolved around the mandatory statutory requirements for maintaining daily diaries under police laws, the legal implications of failing to maintain manual roznamcha alongside electronic records, and the supervisory powers of the judiciary over police stations to protect fundamental rights. The court held that maintaining both manual and electronic daily diaries is mandatory under the Police Rules 1934 and the Police Order 2002, and failure to do so compromises accountability and violates fundamental rights. Consequently, the court disposed of the habeas petition while issuing comprehensive guidelines regarding police record maintenance, directing the Inspector General of Police Punjab to provide online access to daily diaries for all District and Sessions Judges.
Questions settled- Whether the maintenance of a manual daily diary (roznamcha) is mandatory alongside electronic record-keeping in police stations?
- What are the legal consequences when police authorities fail to incorporate arrests and movements in the station daily diary?
- Can District and Sessions Judges be granted online access to police station daily diaries for inspection under the Police Order 2002?
- Does the failure to properly maintain police station registers violate fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty?
- Mst. Kaniz Fatima & Another vs Federation Of Pakistan & 6 Others2025 IHC 230, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 254 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kalsoom Bibi and another vs Muhammad Munir and others2025 PHC 70 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Jameela Riaz vs Igi life Insurance through Head of Business and operation and another2025 CLD 29 · Insurance Tribunal, Lahore · 2024-11-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Jameela Paracha vs Mst. Amna Inayat etc2025 PHC 94 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Jameela Khatoon etc vs Abdul Rasheed etc2025 PHC 60 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ishrat Gul d/o Abdul Ghafoor vs Nigar Ali and others2025 SHC SUK 1995 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-04Read full judgment →