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.

• Dadlo, Zameer Ahmed and others vs The State2025 SHC SUK 1701 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-26
  criminal appealdouble murderocular evidenceforensic evidencecorroborationenmityconvictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals filed by appellants challenging their convictions and sentences for double murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, despite defense contentions regarding long-standing enmity, delayed FIR registration, and alleged evidentiary discrepancies. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution’s case was proven through a consistent, corroborative chain of ocular, medical, and forensic evidence. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that minor omissions or discrepancies in testimony do not undermine the core of the prosecution's case when supported by reliable eyewitness accounts and forensic reports. Furthermore, the court laid down the principle that an acquittal in a separate arms recovery case does not ipso facto exonerate an accused from a murder trial where independent evidence establishes their involvement. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were maintained, with the appellants ordered to be taken into custody to serve their sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal in a separate arms recovery case automatically exonerate an accused in a murder trial?
  • Can minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony undermine the prosecution's case if the evidence is otherwise corroborated by medical and forensic reports?
  • Is ocular evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction when corroborated by medical findings and forensic analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Cupola Pakistan Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax2025 SHC KHI 2112 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-28Read full judgment →
• CSM Pakistan (Guarantee) Limited vs Kresta Corp2025 SHC 398 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-07Read full judgment →
• Crescent Bahuman Limited & Another vs Securities And Exchange2025 IHC 570 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Complaint No.0013/Om/2002: In the matter of vs Not2025 PTD 194 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2022-05-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar vs Messrs2025 PTD 650 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Regional Tax Office, Sialkot and others vs M_s White Gold Steel Mills, S.I.E. Daska and others2025 SCP 217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  deemed assessment orderrectification of mistakejurisdiction of Commissionerlegal fictionincome tax assessmentrevised return
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, concerning the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 221(1) to rectify mistakes apparent on the face of the record and amend deemed assessment orders issued under section 120. The Lahore and Islamabad High Courts had previously held that deemed assessment orders do not qualify as orders "passed" by the Commissioner because they arise by legal fiction from a taxpayer's return without a formal adjudication or application of mind, and thus fall outside the scope of section 221(1). Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the deeming provisions under section 120(1) operate sequentially—first deeming an assessment to be made by the Commissioner, and second deeming the return to be an assessment order. By applying the established interpretative framework regarding legal fictions, the Court concluded that the deemed assessment order carries the inevitable corollary of a deemed application of mind by the Commissioner. Consequently, the Commissioner possesses the requisite jurisdiction under section 221(1) to rectify mistakes apparent from the record in such deemed assessment orders. The appeals were accordingly allowed and the impugned judgments set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Commissioner has jurisdiction under subsection (1) of section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to amend a deemed assessment order under section 120 to rectify a mistake apparent from the record?
  • Do the deeming provisions of section 120(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, create a legal fiction that amounts to an assessment made and an assessment order issued by the Commissioner?
  • Can a deemed assessment order under section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, be treated as an order passed by the Commissioner for the purposes of rectification under section 221?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone III and others vs M_s. MND E&P A.S and others2025 SHC KHI 2184, 2025 SHC KHI 2185 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore vs M/s Educational Services2025 SCP 161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-24
  Federal Excise Act 2005franchise servicesfranchiserfranchiseelegal incidenceeconomic incidencedelegated legislationexcise duty liabilitytax reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a tax reference under the Federal Excise Act, 2005 concerning whether the legal liability to pay excise duty on franchise services provided in Pakistan lay upon the resident franchiser or the franchisees. The Appellate Tribunal and the High Court had ruled that under Rule 43A of the Federal Excise Rules, 2005, the liability fell exclusively on the franchisees. The Supreme Court allowed the Department's appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment. The Court held that under Section 3(5)(c) of the Act, the legal incidence of excise duty on services provided in Pakistan falls squarely on the service provider (the franchiser), whereas the exception shifting liability to the recipient applies only where the provider is outside Pakistan. The Court established that delegated legislation cannot alter or override the legal incidence of tax fixed by the parent statute without express statutory authorization. Rule 43A must therefore be read harmoniously as applying only to foreign franchisers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the legal liability to pay federal excise duty on franchise services rendered in Pakistan by a resident franchiser falls upon the franchiser or the franchisee?
  • Can the Federal Board of Revenue through delegated legislation or statutory rules alter the legal incidence of tax expressly established by the parent statute?
  • Whether Rule 43A of the Federal Excise Rules, 2005 applies to domestic franchise agreements or is restricted to services provided by foreign franchisers?
  • Does filing a reference under the incorrect tax statute invalidate the proceedings when an equivalent reference provision exists in the governing enactment?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore vs M_s Azam Textile Mills Limited, Lahore2025 SCP 40, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 364, PTCL 2025 CL. 323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-15
  leave to appealincome taxsale of goodsmonetary considerationassociated entitiestax assessmentinter-company transactionsraw material transferpresumptive taxtax liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order concerning the classification of inter-company transactions for tax purposes. The core legal question was whether the transfer of raw materials between associated entities (sister concerns) without monetary consideration constitutes a "sale" under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that such transactions do not qualify as sales. The Court emphasized that a sale, in common parlance and as defined by Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and implied by Section 153(7)(iii) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, fundamentally requires the transfer of ownership of goods in exchange for monetary consideration (price). Transactions lacking this essential element of consideration are mere transfers or exchanges, not sales, and therefore, tax obligations under Section 153 of the Ordinance do not apply to them.

  Questions settled

  • Do transactions involving the transfer of raw materials between associated entities without monetary consideration qualify as "sales" under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • What are the essential elements required for a transaction to be classified as a "sale" for tax purposes?
  • Can tax obligations under Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, be imposed on transfers of raw materials to a sister concern if no monetary consideration is exchanged?
  • How does the definition of a "contract of sale" under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, relate to tax assessments under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore and others vs Salman Butt and others2025 SCP 173, PTCL 2025 CL. 660 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-08
  tax record retentiondeemed assessmentstatutory timeframepending proceedingsIncome Tax Ordinancetax audit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a tax dispute regarding the obligation of a taxpayer to maintain records beyond the statutory period prescribed by the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether a taxpayer is required to retain tax records for the tax year 2010 after the expiry of the five-year period, specifically when proceedings were initiated within that timeframe. The Lahore High Court had previously ruled that the taxpayer was not required to produce records due to the lapse of the statutory retention period. The Supreme Court set aside this finding, holding that the proviso to Section 174(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, extends the obligation to maintain records if proceedings are pending before any authority or court. The Court established the principle that if a cause is sub judice, the proviso to Section 174(3) overrides the general timeframe for record retention, requiring the taxpayer to maintain documents until the proceedings reach their logical conclusion, provided the initial notice was issued within the statutory timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Does the obligation to maintain tax records under the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 extend beyond the statutory timeframe if legal proceedings are pending?
  • Does the proviso to Section 174(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 apply to proceedings initiated within the statutory limitation period?
  • Is a taxpayer required to retain documents until the final decision of a pending proceeding even if the standard retention period has expired?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Corporate Zone, Rto Peshawar, Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal Lto, Karachi vs M_s Flying Kraft Paper Mills (Pvt.) Limited, Charsadda and another, Matiari Sugar Mills, Karachi2025 SCP 58, PTCL 2025 CL. 419, 2025 PTD 622, 2025 SCMR 724, PLJ 2025 SC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-26
  input tax adjustmentoutput taxSales Tax Act 1990registered manufacturing premisestaxable activitycommon commercial meterlabour residential colonydirect manufacturing expenditure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from proceedings initiated via a show cause notice issued by the revenue department challenging the respondent-company's adjustment of input tax paid on electricity and gas bills supplied to a labour residential colony located within the factory premises. The Appellate Tribunal and the High Court in reference jurisdiction both held that the input tax adjustment was justified. The Supreme Court considered whether sales tax paid on utility consumption in the labour residential colony could be lawfully adjusted as input tax against output tax under Section 7(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Dismissing the department's appeal, the Court held that the residential colony was located within the single registered manufacturing premises through a common commercial meter to facilitate unhindered work. The Court established that utility consumption by labour residing within the registered manufacturing unit possesses a direct nexus with taxable manufacturing activities, constitutes a direct manufacturing cost, and is eligible for input tax adjustment under a liberal interpretation of Section 7(1).

  Questions settled

  • Whether input tax paid on electricity and gas supplied through a common meter to a labour residential colony within registered manufacturing premises is adjustable under Section 7(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Whether utility consumption in a workers' residential colony located inside a factory has a direct nexus with the taxable manufacturing activity of the registered person?
  • Should Section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 be interpreted liberally to permit input tax adjustment against output sales tax?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Corporate Zone, Regional Tax Office, Faisalabad vs M_s National Public Welfare Society, Jinnah Colony, Faisalabad and another2025 SCP 152, 2025 PLJ SC 361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  tax creditretrospective applicationnon-profit organizationincome tax referencestatutory interpretationtax approvalwelfare society
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil petition filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue challenging a Lahore High Court order that dismissed an income tax reference regarding a welfare society's entitlement to tax credit for the 2019 tax year. The core legal question was whether the amendment to Rule 214 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002, introduced by SRO No.754(I)/2016, applied retrospectively to invalidate an approval granted to the taxpayer in 2007. The Petitioner argued that the taxpayer's approval expired in 2010 due to the three-year limitation period introduced by the SRO. The Supreme Court held that the SRO, which mandates that approvals remain in force for three years, applies prospectively rather than retrospectively, as the text specifies the "subsequent three years" and lacks any provision for retrospective application. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the taxpayer's 2007 approval remained valid until August 2019, thereby entitling the taxpayer to the claimed tax credit. The key principle laid down is that amendments to tax laws or rules cannot be applied retrospectively unless specifically provided for by the legislature or the relevant authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does the amendment to Rule 214 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002, introduced by SRO No.754(I)/2016, apply retrospectively?
  • Can a tax rule amendment be applied retrospectively in the absence of an express provision?
  • Does an approval granted under Rule 212 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002, remain valid if the subsequent amendment to Rule 214 is not applied retrospectively?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Corporate Zone, Peshawar vs Messrs2025 PTD 23 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Corporate Zone, Rto, Peshawar vs Messrs2025 PTD (Trib.) 540 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-07-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Cantt Zone, Regional Tax Office, Rawalpindi2025 LHC 4127 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Special Zone for Builders and Developers)2025 SCP 56, 2025 SCMR 716, PTCL 2025 CL. 434, 2025 PTD 582, 2025 SCMR · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-27
  definite informationamendment of assessmentincome tax assessmenttax evasionbank statementstax referenceIncome Tax Ordinance 2001
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the interpretation of 'definite information' required for the amendment of tax assessments under Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether a taxpayer's bank statement, in isolation, constitutes sufficient 'definite information' to justify re-opening an assessment finalized under Section 120. The Supreme Court held that while the procedural requirements for 'definite information' have evolved from the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 to the 2001 Ordinance, the underlying principle remains that information must be sufficiently specific to establish that income has escaped assessment without requiring extensive further scrutiny or logical deduction. The Court distinguished the present case from precedents where mathematical formulas or clear asset-income discrepancies provided definitive proof. It concluded that bank statements alone do not necessarily demonstrate taxable income and thus do not automatically constitute 'definite information.' Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the determination of whether information is 'definite' must be made on a case-by-case basis, and declined to interfere with the Tribunal's factual findings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a bank statement alone constitute 'definite information' for the purpose of amending an assessment under Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Is the standard for 'definite information' under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, identical to the standard under the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the factual findings of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue regarding the nature of information used for tax assessment?
  • Does the application of a predetermined formula to definite information fall within the scope of 'definite information' for tax assessment purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s Mustafa Enterprises and another2025 SCP 274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-30
  input tax adjustmentfake invoicesflying invoicesblacklisted suppliersshow cause noticetax fraudOrder-in-Originalconcurrent findings of factSales Tax Act 1990
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a civil petition for leave to appeal filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the department's reference application under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 and upheld the decision of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR). The revenue department claimed that the respondent taxpayer unlawfully adjusted input tax based on fake or flying invoices from blacklisted suppliers and failed to comply with Section 73 of the Sales Tax Act 1990. The Supreme Court observed that the show cause notice and Order-in-Original were based on vague allegations, presumptions, and unverified reports without any concrete evidence proving that suppliers were blacklisted or suspended during the relevant tax period. Furthermore, the adjudicating authority exceeded its jurisdiction by going beyond the allegations framed in the show cause notice. Finding no legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the ATIR and the High Court, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can the revenue department disallow input tax adjustment on the ground of fake or flying invoices without conducting an independent inquiry or establishing that suppliers were blacklisted during the relevant tax period?
  • Can an adjudicating authority pass an Order-in-Original based on allegations or grounds not confronted to the taxpayer in the show cause notice?
  • Does an adjustment of input tax amount to tax fraud under Section 2(37) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 when based purely on departmental presumptions without supporting evidentiary material?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s D-Watson & another2025 LHC 4654 · Lahore High Court · 2025-07-03Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal), Islamabad and others vs Pakistan2025 SCP 267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  tax recoverygarnishee proceedingsdue processright to dignitylegal certaintyincome tax ordinancestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil petitions, converted into appeals and dismissed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenge the Islamabad High Court's judgments which upheld decisions setting aside immediate tax recovery notices issued under Section 140 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question revolves around whether the Commissioner can demand immediate payment on the date a notice is issued under Section 140, or whether the provision mandates setting a future date for payment. The Court held that Section 140 explicitly requires the Commissioner to specify a future date for payment in the notice, precluding arbitrary or immediate same-day recovery and affording reasonable time to comply. The key principles laid down include that fiscal statutes and coercive recovery mechanisms must strictly respect due process, legal certainty, and taxpayer dignity under Articles 10A and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and that subordinate legislation such as the Income Tax Recovery Rules, 2002 cannot override clear statutory mandates.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 140 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 permits the Commissioner to demand immediate payment on the exact date of issuing a recovery notice?
  • Does Section 140 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 require the setting of a future date for payment in the notice issued to a third party holding money on behalf of the taxpayer?
  • Whether subordinate legislation like the Income Tax Recovery Rules, 2002 can override clear statutory mandates regarding tax recovery procedures?
  • Does the process of coercive tax recovery attract fundamental rights such as due process and the right to dignity under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Collector, Model Customs Collectorate, Custom House, Gawadar at2025 PTD 112 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-08-30Read full judgment →
• Collector, Collectorate of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Allama2025 LHC 5283 · Lahore High Court · 2025-07-24Read full judgment →
• Collector, Collectorate of Customs (Enforcement), Khuzdar, Camp Office at2025 PTD 65 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-08-30Read full judgment →
• Collector, Collectorate of Customs (Enforcement) Khuzdar Camp Office at2025 PTD 373 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-12-05Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Peshawar vs Messrs2025 PTD 596 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-06Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate of Export vs Messrs2025 PTD 133 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-22Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, Model Collectorate of Customs (Preventative), Custom House, Karachi vs Mehraj and another2025 PTD 626 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs vs M/s Bashir Pipe Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. etc2025 LHC 5586 · Lahore High Court · 2025-09-15Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs vs Messrs2025 PTD 571 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-10Read full judgment →
• Col. (R) Mukarram Ali Shah vs The State and another2025 PLD Sindh 63 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-03
  dishonestly issuing a chequestale chequenegotiable instrumentquashing of proceedingscriminal miscellaneous applicationlegally enforceable debt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges the dismissal of an application under Section 249-A Cr.P.C. concerning a criminal case registered under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the alleged issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether criminal liability under Section 489-F P.P.C. attaches when a cheque is issued merely as a guarantee and is presented to the bank after a lapse of three years, rendering it a stale cheque rather than being dishonoured for insufficient funds. The High Court held that a cheque presented after the expiration of a reasonable timeframe (typically six months), and thus treated as stale by banking practices and Section 84 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, does not attract penal consequences under Section 489-F P.P.C. The court established that Section 489-F contemplates a cheque issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability that is dishonoured upon timely presentation, and prosecuting a stale cheque constitutes an abuse of the court's process.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply to a cheque presented for encashment long after the expiration of a reasonable timeframe as a stale cheque?
  • Can criminal proceedings under Section 489-F P.P.C. be quashed under Section 249-A Cr.P.C. when the underlying cheque was returned by the bank as outdated rather than dishonoured for insufficient funds?
  • What constitutes a reasonable time for the presentation of a negotiable instrument under Section 84 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881?
  Read full judgment →
• Col. (R) Khalil ur Rehman vs Judicial Magistrate, Sec-30, Islamabad West2025 IHC 292 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-28Read full judgment →
• Civil Works Organization (Cwo) through Authorized Officers vs The Land2025 MLD 176 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-25Read full judgment →
• Civil Aviation Authority Officers Association of Pakistan through Secretary2025 PLC (C.S.) 192 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-21
  temporary legislationlapsed ordinancescivil aviation authoritypromotion pre-selectionlocus standiwelfare associationconstitutional lawstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit challenged a memorandum concerning the pre-selection of candidates for promotion within the Civil Aviation Authority, filed by an officers' association and its former secretary general. The core legal questions involved the legal effect and continuity of rights under two lapsed presidential ordinances—the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 2021 and the Pakistan Airport Authority Ordinance, 2021—and the maintainability of the suit by a defunct welfare association. The court held that the temporary ordinances having lapsed by afflux of time without being acted upon or approved under Article 89 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, they left no past or closed transactions, thereby reviving the original Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982. Furthermore, the plaintiff association lacked locus standi and its secretary general's tenure had expired. The court concluded that promotions must proceed under the pre-selection board framework governed by the reviving 1982 Ordinance. The key principles laid down are that temporary legislation lapsing under Article 89 cannot create permanent or continuing rights unless saved by closed transactions, and a welfare association cannot initiate legal proceedings against its employer outside the scope of its registered objectives.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of temporary ordinances that lapse under Article 89 of the Constitution of Pakistan without being approved by Parliament?
  • Does the repeal or lapsing of an ordinance revive the original statute that existed prior to its promulgation?
  • Can a welfare association initiate a civil suit against its employer for the enforcement of contractual or service obligations outside its registered objectives?
  • Whether an association's secretary general can maintain a legal action after the expiration of their official tenure and when the association is dormant?
  Read full judgment →
• Cir vs M/s Riy Metals Recycling Pvt. Ltd. Etc2025 LHC 5575 · Lahore High Court · 2025-09-16Read full judgment →
• Choudhry Muhammad Nisar and 2 others vs Waqar Ali Khan and another2025 LHC 669 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-25Read full judgment →
• Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab/Senior Member Board of Revenue2025 SCP 272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-24
  remand ordersadministrative inactionstay of executionjudicial disciplineconstitutional dutyBoard of Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions concern the failure of revenue authorities to implement remand orders issued by the Lahore High Court over a decade ago. The core legal question addressed is whether administrative authorities may delay the implementation of judicial remand orders based solely on the pendency of further proceedings. The Supreme Court held that administrative inaction premised on the mere pendency of an appeal or petition, without an express injunctive order, is unjustified and impermissible. The Court emphasized that remand orders must be complied with faithfully and expeditiously, as failure to do so violates the constitutional duty of authorities to act in aid of judicial orders. Relying on Order XX Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, the Court reiterated that the filing of an appeal does not automatically stay the execution of an order. The Court directed the Board of Revenue, Punjab, to issue comprehensive policy guidelines ensuring prompt compliance with remand orders and to submit a status report on all pending remanded cases within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere pendency of an appeal or petition before the Supreme Court operate as an automatic stay of proceedings or execution of an order?
  • Is administrative inaction justified when based solely on the pendency of further proceedings without an express injunctive order?
  • What is the constitutional duty of administrative authorities regarding the implementation of judicial remand orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue Corporate Tax Office FBR vs Federal2025 SHC KHI 1548 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chetan vs The State2025 SCP 89, 2025 SCMR 944 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-06
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtsource of lightmedico-ocular conflictdelay in lodging FIRweapon recoveryunproved motive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose out of the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions pertained to whether the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt in view of an unmentioned source of light at night, sharp conflict between ocular and medical evidence, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, inconsequential recovery of the weapon without matching crime empties, and failure to prove motive. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and acquitted the appellant on benefit of doubt. The Court held that the absence of a proved source of light renders nighttime identification doubtful, material medico-ocular discrepancies undermine ocular testimony, an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR suggests deliberation, weapon recovery without matching empties possesses no corroborative value, and a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to mention and recover any source of light at the place of a nighttime occurrence renders the identification of the accused doubtful?
  • Whether a marked conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number and nature of injuries is fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • What is the evidentiary value and legal effect of an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR?
  • Whether the recovery of a firearm carries corroborative evidentiary value when no matching crime empties are recovered from the crime scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Nadeem Amir vs The State & another2025 IHC 178 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-07
  pre-arrest bailbailable offencestatutory rightnon-prosecutionprocedural technicalitiescheatingimpersonation
  Summary & questions settled

  Through the instant petition, the petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 420 and 170 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Koral, Islamabad. The core legal question before the court was whether pre-arrest bail can be refused in a bailable offence on the ground of non-prosecution or non-appearance of the accused before the lower court. The Islamabad High Court held that in cases involving bailable offences, the grant of bail is an absolute statutory right of the accused under Section 496 and Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, leaving the court with no discretion to refuse it. The court laid down the principle that procedural technicalities and non-appearance should not be used to defeat the statutory right to bail in bailable offences, and accordingly confirmed the pre-arrest bail of the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the court has discretion to refuse pre-arrest bail in a bailable offence?
  • Is bail in a bailable offence considered an absolute statutory right of the accused?
  • Can procedural technicalities or non-appearance be used to defeat the right to bail in bailable offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Pervez Iqbal vs Azad Govt. of State of Jammu & Kashmir2025 PLJ AJ&K 14 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Chaudhary Khurshid Ahmed vs Ex-Officio Justice Of Peace/Additional2025 IHC 112 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chaudhary Asad Pervaiz & Another vs Federation Of Pakistan & 6 Others2025 IHC 144 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-07Read full judgment →
• Changaiz Khan and others vs The State and others2025 MLD 205 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-11-04
  murder referencecapital punishmentbenefit of reasonable doubtdelayed FIRconstructive liabilityunlawful assemblywithholding of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 302(b), 324, and 337-Y of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was challenged alongside a murder reference for confirmation of death sentences. The core legal questions involved the credibility of delayed eyewitness testimonies, the admissibility and reliability of statements not recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the application of constructive liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the benefit of reasonable doubt. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to unnatural conduct and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, a significant delay in recording Section 161 statements, material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical or site evidence, and the withholding of key evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The key principle laid down is that the withholding of best available evidence attracts an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delayed recording of statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without plausible explanation render eyewitness testimony untrustworthy?
  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to bring crucial recovery memos and written complaints on record creates a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused be convicted under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the prosecution fails to establish a pre-concert or common object for an unlawful assembly?
  • What is the evidentiary value of withholding best available witnesses during a criminal trial under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Chan Mehboob and another vs Muhammad Yaqoob and others2025 IHC 52 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-01-24Read full judgment →
• Chairman, NADRA, NADRA Headquarter, Islamabad and others vs Abdul2025 SCP 30, 2025 SCMR 612, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-28
  regularization of servicecontractual employeesdisabled quotadiscriminationconstitutional jurisdictionrule of consistencyfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court that directed the regularization of the respondent's services as a Naib Qasid in NADRA. The respondent, appointed on a contract basis under the disabled persons quota, was denied regularization solely because his service period fell three days short of the one-year requirement stipulated in the department's regularization policy. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's interference was justified and whether the respondent was subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Court held that public functionaries must act without discrimination and adhere to the rule of consistency, noting that similarly situated contractual employees had been regularized pursuant to other judgments that attained finality. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the constitutional rights of disabled persons, the mandate of equality before the law under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and the obligations under welfare frameworks. The Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a contractual employee of a statutory organization can claim the benefit of a departmental regularization policy if other similarly situated employees have been regularized?
  • Does the failure to avail an Intra Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 oust the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court after a petition has remained pending for several years?
  • Whether public functionaries are bound by the principle of non-discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when implementing a policy for the regularization of employees?
  • Do contractual employees appointed under the disabled persons quota have a right to be considered for regularization without arbitrary distinctions?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman Water and Power Development Authority, Pakisan Lahore and others vs Haji Abdul Rehman and others2025 SCP 74, 2025 SCMR 748, 2025 PLJ SC 305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-20
  land acquisitionenhanced compensationexecuting courtmarket valuelimitationestoppelexecution application
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding an order of the Executing Court, which entertained an execution application by land owners seeking enhanced compensation based on a subsequent award for land in the same vicinity, relying on the precedent in Saddadat Ali Khan v. Collector Land Acquisition (PLD 2010 SC 878). The core legal question is whether land owners who accepted compensation without filing a reference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can subsequently claim enhanced compensation through execution proceedings after a significant lapse of time. The Supreme Court held that while landowners may claim enhanced rates if they establish identical land nature and vicinity, the principle does not apply simpliciter when acquisitions are separated by years. The Court highlighted critical questions requiring factual probe, including the timing of Section 4 notifications, market value determination under Section 23, the doctrine of estoppel, the maintainability of a fresh execution application after satisfaction of a prior decree, and the issue of limitation. The appeal was accordingly disposed of for expeditious determination by the Executing Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can land owners who accepted compensation without filing a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 subsequently claim enhanced compensation based on a later award?
  • Whether the principle of awarding similar compensation to affectees of the same vicinity applies simpliciter when land acquisitions are separated by a considerable period of time?
  • Can a fresh execution application be entertained when an earlier execution application has already been satisfied and consigned to the record room?
  • Does the doctrine of estoppel apply to land owners who received their compensation amount without raising objections?
  • Is a claim for enhanced compensation barred by limitation after a lapse of 16 to 17 years?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman Red Cresent Islamabad and others vs Raja Tayyab Mehmood2025 SC AJK 2 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-02-10Read full judgment →
• Chairman National Highway Authority through its Authorized2025 YLR 178 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• Chairman National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General NAB2025 IHC 310 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-20
  NAB appeallocus standistatutory interpretationaccountability courtprocedural proprietycriminal appeal maintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by the Deputy Prosecutor General of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) challenging an acquittal order passed by an Accountability Court. The core legal question was whether an appeal under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, is maintainable when filed by the Deputy Prosecutor General without explicit authorization from the Prosecutor General NAB or the Chairman NAB. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent and dismissed it. The ratio decidendi is that the right to file an appeal under Section 32 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, is exclusively vested in the Prosecutor General NAB or a person duly authorized by the Chairman NAB. The Court established the principle that the procedural requirements for filing appeals under the NAB Ordinance are mandatory and jurisdictional. Consequently, any appeal instituted by an unauthorized officer lacks the requisite locus standi, rendering the proceedings legally defective and liable to dismissal at the outset to maintain the integrity of the statutory accountability framework.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal filed by the Deputy Prosecutor General under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 maintainable without authorization from the Prosecutor General NAB or the Chairman NAB?
  • Does the failure to obtain proper authorization for filing an appeal under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 constitute a fatal defect?
  • Are the procedural requirements for filing appeals under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 considered mandatory and jurisdictional?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Tariq Farooq, General Secretary PML(N) Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Ex-2025 SC AJK 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Ch. Shaukat Ali Daulla and 15 others vs Province of Punjab through Chief2025 YLR 97 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-12Read full judgment →
• Ch. Jang Sher vs Amanat Ali2025 LHC 354 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-23Read full judgment →
• Ch. Fayyaz-ur-Rehman Khalid vs Amir Javed and others2025 SCP 280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-07-29
  revisional jurisdictiondiscretionary findingsrestoration of suitcondonation of delaynon-prosecutioncivil procedureappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil dispute where the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core legal question was whether a revisional court could reverse the discretionary findings of a Trial Court regarding the condonation of delay in a restoration application when the Trial Court had acted within its lawful jurisdiction. The Trial Court had restored a suit dismissed for non-prosecution, accepting the petitioner's explanation that he was incarcerated during the relevant period. The Supreme Court held that the revisional court erred by substituting its own findings for those of the Trial Court, effectively acting as an appellate court without identifying any illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error as required by Section 115. The Court emphasized that a revisional court cannot interfere with a lawful exercise of discretion by a Trial Court merely because it disagrees with the outcome. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and the revisional court, restoring the Trial Court's original order, and directed the suit to be decided expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Can a revisional court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reverse the discretionary findings of a Trial Court without establishing illegality or material irregularity?
  • Is a revisional court permitted to substitute its own findings for those of a Trial Court when the Trial Court's findings are neither arbitrary nor perverse?
  • Does the failure of a revisional court to consider an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, constitute a valid ground for setting aside its order?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Basharat Ali Hanjra and another vs CDA through its Chairman and others2025 IHC 376 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Capt. Muhammad Ali Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary for Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Government of Pakistan Islamabad and 4 others2025 PLC (C.S.) 221 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-21
  service matterslegitimate expectationseniority rolladministrative actionconstitutional petitionport qasim authoritypostings and transfers
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a Pilot/Tug Commander (BPS-19) serving in the Port Qasim Authority challenging an office order whereby two junior officers were posted to managerial positions of Dock Master and Deputy Harbour Master over the petitioner, bypassing established seniority and past practice. The core legal question was whether administrative postings in public authorities can disregard seniority and settled consistent practice, thereby violating the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The Sindh High Court held that the consistent practice of the authority and the service structure created a legitimate expectation for senior officers to be posted according to their seniority roll, and arbitrary deviations by administrative authorities without justification are unlawful. The court laid down the principle that the doctrine of legitimate expectation protects employees against arbitrary administrative actions that bypass uniform past practices and seniority in postings, affording them locus standi to seek judicial review.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee has a legitimate expectation to be posted to higher managerial positions in accordance with consistent past practice and seniority?
  • Does the doctrine of legitimate expectation afford an employee locus standi to challenge administrative postings that bypass seniority?
  • Can administrative authorities exercise posting discretion arbitrarily and ignore established service hierarchy and seniority rolls?
  Read full judgment →
• Capital Development Authority, etc vs Full Bench, NIRC, Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 198 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-11Read full judgment →
• Capital Development Authority vs National Industrial Relations2025 IHC 196 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Capital Development Authority vs Habib Rafique (Private) Limited2025 IHC 448 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-23Read full judgment →
• Capital Development Authority vs Ghulam Mehboob Khokhar2025 IHC 258 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-22Read full judgment →
• Capital Development Authority through Chairman, Islamabad vs Syed2025 CLC 486 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-25Read full judgment →
• Capital Development Authority (CDA) vs Muhammad Nawaz and others2025 IHC 462 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-27Read full judgment →
• Cantonment Board Nowshera through Executive Officer and another vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony, Islamabad and others2025 IHC 268 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Bushra Hussain vs Chairman, Arbitration Council, etc2025 IHC 364 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-26Read full judgment →
• Bushra Bibi, Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs The State etc, The State & Another2025 IHC 24 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-31
  issuance of summonsprima facie caseiddat periodmarriage during iddatprivate complaintquashing of proceedingsmens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a writ petition and a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging decisions of lower forums regarding the issuance of summons in a private criminal complaint for contracting a marriage during the Iddat period, allegedly constituting offences under sections 496 and 496B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the legality of summoning accused persons, the determination of mens rea, the validity of the Iddat period, and compliance with mandatory procedural requirements. The Islamabad High Court held that at the stage of issuing process or summons, a court is only required to see if a prima facie case is made out and should not delve into a detailed appreciation of evidence or the merits of the case. The court partially allowed the petitions by setting aside the issuance of summons under section 496B PPC due to non-compliance with the special procedure under section 203C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, but upheld the summons and continuation of proceedings under section 496 PPC, leaving all factual and legal objections to be raised before the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court is required to evaluate the detailed merits and evidence of a case at the stage of issuing summons on a private complaint?
  • Does the issuance of summons by a trial court in a criminal complaint amount to an infringement of the accused's rights or a determination of guilt?
  • Whether non-compliance with the specific procedure prescribed under section 203C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the issuance of summons for an offence under section 496B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an accused challenge the issuance of process by entering into a detailed appraisal of the merits of the allegations rather than pointing out a jurisdictional error or illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Brig. (R) Imtiaz Ahmed vs Deputy Commissioner In-Land Revenue, Benami2025 IHC 84 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Board Of Intermediate And Secondary Education Rawalpindi Through its2025 LHC 739, 2025 PLJ Lahore 501 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Blitz Advertising (Pvt.) Ltd vs Civil Judge Lahore & another2025 LHC 290 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-11Read full judgment →
• Bilal Siddique vs Muhammad Naeem2025 LHC 5028 · Lahore High Court · 2025-07-11Read full judgment →
• Bilal Muzaffar alias Heera, etc vs The State etc2025 LHC 717, 2025 PCRLJ 942 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-04
  murderdelayed post-mortem examinationhostile witnessocular account contradictionabscondencecorroborative evidencebenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was preferred by two convicts against their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad in a triple murder case. The primary legal questions concerned the evidentiary impact of unexplained delay in reporting and conducting post-mortem examinations, conflict between ocular and medical accounts, the declaration and examination of hostile witnesses, the effect of acquitting co-accused on the same evidence, and the legal weight of abscondence. The Lahore High Court held that substantial, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and conducting autopsies suggested consultation, deliberation, and planting of witnesses. Furthermore, material improvements by the sole non-hostile eyewitness, medical contradictions, and the absence of independent corroboration created serious doubt. The Court noted that abscondence is merely corroborative and cannot substitute substantive evidence. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained, substantial delay in conducting a post-mortem examination give rise to an inference of deliberation and planting of eyewitnesses?
  • Can a court permit a party to cross-examine its own witness under Article 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 after the conclusion of examination-in-chief?
  • Can the factum of an accused person's abscondence serve as substantive evidence to sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable ocular testimony?
  • Can an accused be convicted on the same set of evidence that was disbelieved to acquit co-accused without independent and strong corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilal Munir Abbasi vs Inspector General of Police, Islamabad and others2025 IHC 564 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-08-04Read full judgment →
• Bilal Javaid and another vs The State through Advocate General and others2025 YLR 1023 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-11-15
  murderQisaslife imprisonmentmitigating circumstanceseye-witnessweapon recoveryacquittalbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and reference arose from a judgment of the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Rawalakot, which convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Penal Code (APC) for murder and sentenced him to death as Qisas, while acquitting a co-accused by extending the benefit of doubt. The prosecution case was based on eye-witness accounts of a shooting incident arising from a dispute over transport timings. On appeal, the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir reviewed the evidence and found that while the identity of the appellant as the shooter, the recovery of the murder weapon, and the medical evidence were established, there were significant mitigating circumstances. Specifically, an independent eye-witness did not see the actual firing, and the bullet recovered from the deceased was not sent for chemical examination. Consequently, the High Court maintained the conviction but modified the sentence from death as Qisas to life imprisonment under Section 302(b) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Penal Code. The acquittal of the co-accused was upheld due to material improvements in witness statements and lack of corroborative recovery.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence of Qisas be maintained if an independent eye-witness gives a version of events that is more favorable to the accused?
  • Whether the failure to send a bullet recovered from the deceased's body for chemical examination constitutes a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely based on their presence at the crime scene when the specific role attributed to them is not substantiated by the evidence?
  • What standard of proof is required for an appellate court to interfere with and recall an order of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilal Iqbal vs The State and others2025 MLD 373 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-20
  post-arrest baildishonored chequeprohibitory clausenon-bailable offencecriminal liabilitybail discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, who is charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the alleged issuance of dishonored cheques. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail, given the substantial financial amount involved and the existence of other pending criminal cases against him. The court allowed the petition, holding that the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court reasoned that since the maximum punishment for the offence is three years, bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. Furthermore, the court established that bail cannot be withheld solely due to the magnitude of the financial amount involved, nor can it be denied based on the mere registration of other criminal cases without prior convictions. The principle laid down is that in non-prohibitory offences, bail should be granted unless exceptional grounds, such as habitual criminality or misuse of bail, are demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be withheld in a non-prohibitory offence solely due to the involvement of a large financial amount?
  • Is the mere registration of other criminal cases against an accused, without prior conviction, a sufficient ground to deny bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilal Ahmed vs Government of Sindh & others2025 SHC KHI 2150 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-27
  constitutional petitionservice matterjurisdictionSindh Service Tribunaldismissal from serviceunauthorized absence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a dismissed police officer, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking reinstatement after being dismissed for unauthorized extended absence due to drug addiction. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 is maintainable in service matters concerning civil servants in light of constitutional and statutory bars. The Sindh High Court held that Sindh civil servants aggrieved by dismissal and appellate orders must approach the Sindh Service Tribunal, which possesses exclusive jurisdiction over terms and conditions of service matters under Article 212 of the Constitution and Section 3(2) of the Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1973. The court laid down the principle that constitutional petitions by civil servants regarding service disputes are barred by Article 212, and such matters fall exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the petition was disposed of to enable the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the Sindh Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is maintainable for service matters of civil servants?
  • Does the Sindh Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over the terms and conditions of service of civil servants under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Can a civil servant challenge an order of dismissal and appellate orders before the High Court instead of the Sindh Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Bijnor Cooperative Housing Society Ltd vs The Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC 726 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-08Read full judgment →
• Bibi Siddiqa vs The State2025 YLR 694 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-01-27
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryconfession before policeco-accused statementcall data recordmurderdacoity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the accused/applicant seeking post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in FIR No. 08 of 2024 registered under Sections 302, 365, 395 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saranan, District Pishin. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail based on tentative assessment where the primary incriminating material consisted of an un-nominated disclosure statement of a co-accused to the police and inconclusive Call Data Records. The Balochistan High Court accepted the application and held that a co-accused's disclosure statement before the police is inadmissible under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and Call Data Records without concrete supporting material are not conclusive at the bail stage, bringing the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that weak evidentiary value of police disclosures and inconclusive CDRs warrant the grant of post-arrest bail for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the statement of a co-accused made before the police can be used as evidence against an accused under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Is a Call Data Record (CDR) alone considered conclusive evidence to establish the guilt of an accused at the bail stage?
  • Does a case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 when the primary evidence against the accused is weak and inadmissible?
  • Can an un-nominated accused be granted post-arrest bail when the case against her rests solely on a disclosure statement and inconclusive CDR?
  Read full judgment →
• Bibi Pato and another vs Government of Pakistan, through Secretary2025 CLC 558 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-09-30Read full judgment →
• Bibi Fareeda vs Jan Bibi2025 PLD Balochistan 18 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-09-27Read full judgment →
• Bhagwandas vs M/s MCB Ltd & Ors2025 SHC 330 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-10Read full judgment →
• Benish Mehboob vs Government of Pakistan and others2025 PTD 279 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-28Read full judgment →
• Bashiran Bibi, etc vs Muhammad Aameen, etc2025 LHC 897 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-22Read full judgment →
• Bashir-ud-Din and Sharif-ud-Din (in Crl.A.26_2021) Mumtaz Hussain an_dfbb7ae12025 SCP 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  judicial confessionco-accuseddeath penalty commutationmitigating circumstancescircumstantial evidencecriminal appealQanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Islamabad High Court for offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a co-accused's judicial confession under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and whether an unproven motive or lack of specific role attribution warrants mitigation of the death penalty. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution’s case—supported by ocular testimony, identification parades, forensic evidence, and the judicial confession of a co-accused—sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Court held that where the motive remains shrouded in mystery and the specific role of each accused in inflicting the fatal injury is not clearly attributed, the extreme penalty of death is not warranted. Consequently, the Court commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment. The judgment reaffirms that while a co-accused's judicial confession is admissible as circumstantial evidence, sentencing must reflect mitigating factors such as the absence of a proven motive and the nature of the fatal act.

  Questions settled

  • Can a judicial confession of a co-accused be considered as circumstantial evidence against other co-accused persons?
  • Does an unproven or mysterious motive for a crime warrant the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is the act of firing a single shot a valid mitigating factor for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • What is the evidentiary standard for proving facts under Article 2(4) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Akbar Ali vs The State2025 SHC 716 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-07
  Illegal Dispossession Actforcible dispossessiondue process of lawlawful occupiercriminal revisionlicensee rightsproperty dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Revision Application challenged an order by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karachi-South, which dismissed a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The applicant, a licensee operating a petrol pump and CNG station, alleged that respondents forcibly dispossessed him without following due legal process. The core legal question was whether a licensee could be evicted through force by the property owner or their agents without recourse to legal proceedings. The Court held that the impugned order was erroneous, emphasizing that no individual, regardless of their status as a licensee or owner, may be dispossessed of property without due process of law. The Court affirmed that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is a special enactment designed to protect lawful occupiers from forcible dispossession, and that self-help or extra-judicial eviction is prohibited. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's dismissal and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, directing the trial court to consider the legal principles regarding due process and the protection of lawful possession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a licensee be forcibly dispossessed from a property without following due process of law?
  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply to the protection of lawful occupiers who are not the absolute owners of the property?
  • Can a party take the law into their own hands to evict an occupant even if they claim a legal right to the property?
  • Does the pendency of civil litigation bar the initiation of criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs The State2025 YLR 777 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-10-16
  narcotics possessionchain of custodysafe transmissioncriminal appealacquittalforensic analysisburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge CNS, Khuzdar, for the possession of narcotics. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery, safe custody, and secure transmission of the alleged contraband from the place of seizure to the forensic laboratory. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court found significant contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery process, the sealing of packets, and the maintenance of the malkhana register. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to provide a coherent account of the chain of custody, particularly noting unexplained delays and discrepancies in the transmission of samples to the laboratory. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution must establish an unbroken, secure chain of custody for narcotics; any lapse in this process casts doubt on the integrity of the evidence, rendering the analyst's report unreliable and insufficient to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to maintain an unbroken chain of custody for narcotics samples vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the report of a Government Analyst reliable if the safe custody and transmission of the samples are not established?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions in the testimonies of recovery witnesses on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed Khan and another, Faisal Saleem & others vs Province of Sindh & others)2025 SHC 106 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-22Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed Arain & others vs Rehmat Ali Arain & others2025 SHC 376 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-28Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed Anjum vs Province of Punjab thr. Chief Minister Punjab, Lahore & others2025 SCP 45, 2025 SCMR 206, 2025 PLJ SC 98 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-04
  proforma promotionretired civil servantstatutory interpretationPunjab Service Tribunalcivil servant promotionactus curiae neminem gravabitmistake of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from leave granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to resolve confusion caused by proof-reading lapses in privately published law textbooks regarding Section 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The Punjab Service Tribunal had dismissed the appellant's service appeal by relying on an erroneously published version of Section 8(5), which incorrectly stated that retired civil servants are ineligible for proforma promotion. The core legal question concerned the correct statutory interpretation of Section 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, as amended by the Punjab Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2005, regarding the eligibility of retired civil servants for proforma promotion. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's judgment was vitiated by an incorrect exposition of law stemming from a wrongly published gazette notification, noting that retired civil servants are indeed eligible to be considered for proforma promotion under the correct statutory text. The Court reaffirmed the legal maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit"—that no person shall suffer due to the fault or mistake of the court or tribunal—and set aside the impugned judgment, remanding the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retired civil servant is eligible for the grant of proforma promotion under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • Does a court or tribunal have the duty to rectify an order or decision rendered on the basis of a patent and obvious error caused by a wrongly published statutory text?
  • What is the underlying legal principle and rationale for considering a civil servant for proforma or notional promotion after retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Shaukat Ali and 13 others2025 LHC 674 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-24Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Director, Directorate of Intelligence of Investigation2025 SCP 51, PTCL 2025 CL. 425, 2025 PTD 608, 2025 SCMR 684 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-12
  customssmugglingconfiscation of vehicleredemption finelocus standiCustoms Act 1969SRO 499(I)/2009aggrieved personleave to appealCustoms Appellate Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court dismissed a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment, upholding the outright confiscation of a vehicle used for smuggling foreign origin betel nuts. The vehicle, designed for LPG transport, was seized and confiscated under the Customs Act 1969. The Customs Appellate Tribunal had allowed its release with a redemption fine under Section 181 of the Act, interpreting SRO 499(I)/2009. However, the High Court reversed this, ruling for outright confiscation. The Supreme Court affirmed that SRO 499(I)/2009, specifically clause (b) of its preamble, prohibits an option for release under Section 181 for conveyances exclusively used for transporting offending goods. It clarified that amendments to Section 157 of the Customs Act 1969 do not affect the powers under Section 181. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner, a driver and not the owner, lacked locus standi to file an appeal under Section 194-A of the Act, as an "aggrieved person" must have a legal grievance or a direct pecuniary interest.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle exclusively used for transporting smuggled goods be released on payment of a redemption fine under Section 181 of the Customs Act 1969, notwithstanding SRO 499(I)/2009?
  • Do amendments to Section 157 of the Customs Act 1969 affect the powers conferred under Section 181 of the same Act?
  • Does a driver, who is not the owner of a confiscated vehicle, have locus standi to file an appeal under Section 194-A of the Customs Act 1969 for its release?
  • What constitutes an "aggrieved person" for the purpose of filing an appeal under Section 194-A of the Customs Act 1969?
  • Is the Customs Appellate Tribunal bereft of jurisdiction to order the release of goods or classes of goods by giving an option under Section 181 of the Customs Act 1969 when the Federal Board of Revenue has specified otherwise under SRO 499(I)/2009?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Bhatti, etc vs Albarka Bank Pakistan Ltd, etc2025 LHC 883, 2025 CLD 615, 2025 PLJ Lahore 573 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-12Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali Arijo vs Mst. Saeeda Arijo and another2025 SHC LAR 2162 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-29Read full judgment →
• Bank Al-Falah Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC 408 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-27Read full judgment →
• Balochistan Irrigation Employees Registered through Chairman Cba and others vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary Irrigation and Power Department and others2025 PLC 42 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-08-31
  trade union registrationcollective bargaining agentNIRC jurisdictiontrans-provincial establishmentIrrigation Departmentconstitutional petitionindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment addresses constitution petitions challenging the registration and issuance of a Collective Bargaining Agent certificate to the Pakistan Canal Labour Union Balochistan by the Registrar Trade Unions, National Industrial Relations Commission. The core legal question concerns whether the National Industrial Relations Commission and its Registrar possessed the jurisdiction under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, to register a trade union and determine a Collective Bargaining Agent for employees of the provincial Irrigation Department of the Government of Balochistan, which is not a trans-provincial establishment or industry-wise trade union. The Balochistan High Court held that the National Industrial Relations Commission lacked jurisdiction as the administrative control of the provincial Irrigation Department exclusively vests in the provincial government and does not extend across multiple provinces. The Court laid down the principle that establishments confined to a single province and governed by provincial authority do not fall within the ambit of trans-provincial or industry-wise establishments under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, rendering registrations by the federal National Industrial Relations Commission unlawful.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Registrar Trade Unions, National Industrial Relations Commission has the jurisdiction to register a trade union for employees of a provincial government department?
  • Does the Irrigation Department of the Government of Balochistan qualify as a trans-provincial establishment or industry-wise trade union under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Can a trade union operating exclusively within a single province be registered under federal legislation meant for trans-provincial and Islamabad Capital Territory establishments?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakhtiar Ali Domki vs The State2025 SHC 1545 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-26
  murderbenefit of doubtcriminal appealocular evidencerecovery of weaponforensic analysisdelayed FIRinterested witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals filed by the appellant against his conviction for murder and illegal weapon possession. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the motive, the ocular account, and the recovery of the weapon beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged contradictions and delays. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court found that the motive remained unproven, the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay, and the ocular account was unreliable due to material contradictions and dishonest improvements. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was deemed inadmissible because the crime empties were not sent to the forensic laboratory in a timely manner, casting doubt on the safe custody of the case property. The court emphasized that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's judgment, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and ordered his immediate release, reaffirming that the benefit of doubt must accrue to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon admissible if the crime empties are not sent for forensic analysis in a timely manner?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive for the crime?
  • Does the non-examination of a material witness create a presumption against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahria Town (Pvt) Limited vs Yasir Ali etc2025 IHC 546 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-17Read full judgment →
• Bahawal Shaikh vs The State2025 MLD 840 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-20
  narcoticschain of custodysafe custody and transmissioncriminal appealcontradictions in evidencestandard of proofcharas recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of ten kilograms of charas. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the police recovery witness accounts, the stringency of the standard of proof in narcotics cases, and the legal effect of a broken or unestablished chain of custody regarding the seized contraband. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution story was illogical and fraught with material contradictions, particularly regarding glaring discrepancies between the description of the seized property in the recovery memo, the chemical examiner's report, and the case property produced at trial. The court laid down the principle that given the stringent punishments under narcotics laws, the rule of thumb for safe administration of criminal justice is that the harsher the sentence, the stricter the standard of proof, requiring meticulous establishment of safe custody and transmission of evidence through matching descriptions.

  Questions settled

  • What is the effect on the prosecution's case when there are glaring discrepancies between the description of seized narcotics in the recovery memo and the case property produced at trial?
  • Does the failure to establish a meticulous chain of custody and safe transmission of narcotics render the evidence inadmissible or doubtful?
  • How does the harshness of sentences under narcotics legislation impact the required standard of proof by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Badar-Ud-Din and another vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Shikarpur2025 MLD 165 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-19Read full judgment →
• Babar Shehzad vs Federation Of Pakistan Through Ministry Of Interior, Islamabad Etc2025 IHC 438 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-24Read full judgment →
• Azra Yasmin vs Judicial Magistrate Sec-30, etc2025 LHC 380, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 345 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-25Read full judgment →
• Azmat Khan & another vs Appellate Board of Bahria University & others2025 SHC KHI 2152 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-28Read full judgment →
• Azizullah Panhwar vs Ali Nawaz Panhwar and others2025 SHC 582 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-24Read full judgment →