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.

• Azizullah & another vs Muzafar Hussain & Ors2025 SHC 448 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-11Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ur Rehman vs The State, etc2025 IHC 482 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-25
  illegal dispossessioncriminal revisionprocedural irregularitySection 200 Cr.P.C.summary dismissalpolice inquiry reportpossession dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad-East, which dismissed a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the complaint without adhering to mandatory procedural requirements for inquiry. The High Court held that the Impugned Order was void ab initio due to significant procedural irregularities. Specifically, the Trial Court failed to comply with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, by not recording the complainant's statement on oath in open court, and accepted a vague police report that failed to conduct an in-depth inquiry into the possession of the disputed property. The court set aside the dismissal order and remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry. The key principle laid down is that a Trial Court must strictly adhere to the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 200 Cr.P.C. and ensure that police reports submitted during the inquiry stage are comprehensive, detailed, and based on an in-depth investigation, rather than vague or superficial assessments.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to record a complainant's statement on oath in open court under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render a dismissal order void?
  • Is a Trial Court legally required to ensure police reports submitted during a complaint inquiry are comprehensive and based on in-depth investigation?
  • Can a criminal complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 be summarily dismissed solely on the ground of a pending civil dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ullah & Others vs The Board of Revenue & Others2025 SHC 694 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
• Aziz Damji vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1987 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-17
  criminal acquittal appealdishonest issuance of chequelegally enforceable liabilityconditional agreementburden of proofdoctrine of double innocencemens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenges the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate-XVIII Karachi South, which acquitted respondent No.1 under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the essential ingredients of Section 489-F PPC—specifically dishonest intent and a legally enforceable subsisting liability—were established when the cheques in question were issued conditionally and the complainant admitted failure to fulfill his contractual obligations. The Sindh High Court held that mere issuance of a cheque and its dishonour do not constitute an offence under Section 489-F unless accompanied by dishonest intention and a valid, unconditional subsisting liability. The Court laid down the principle that where a transaction is conditional and the complainant himself admits non-performance of obligations, the foundational elements of the offence are missing, and the doctrine of double innocence protects the acquitted respondent. Furthermore, admissions by the complainant shift evidentiary burdens under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, reinforcing that the prosecution must prove mens rea beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere issuance of a cheque and its subsequent dishonour automatically constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be established when the cheque was issued subject to specific unfulfilled conditions by the complainant?
  • What foundational elements must the prosecution prove to sustain a conviction under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • How does the admission of non-performance of contractual obligations by a complainant affect the evidentiary value of a prosecution under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmed vs The State2025 YLR 713 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-09-12
  post-arrest bailabduction for ransomstatutory delaytest of identification paradeanti-terrorismprima facie evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who is accused of abducting a minor for ransom. The core legal questions were whether the applicant was entitled to bail on merits, given the evidence on record, and whether the applicant qualified for bail on statutory grounds due to trial delay. The court held that the applicant failed to make a case for bail, noting that the FIR was lodged promptly and that there was prima facie evidence connecting the applicant to the crime, including the recovery of ransom money and the identification of the applicant by the victim during a Test of Identification Parade. Regarding the statutory delay, the court found that the delay was attributable to both the prosecution and the applicant, and that the statutory period had not yet elapsed. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that deep appreciation of evidence is unwarranted at the bail stage, and statutory bail cannot be granted when the delay in trial is partly attributable to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be granted bail on statutory grounds if the delay in trial is partially attributable to the accused?
  • Is deep appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage?
  • Does the recovery of ransom money and identification of the accused by the victim constitute reasonable grounds to deny bail in an abduction case?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmad and others vs Mst. Musarat2025 SCP 157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-09
  inheritancedivorceTalaq-e-Biddatiddat periodMuslim Family Law Ordinancesuccession certificatewidow's rightsleave to appealdissolution of marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal, filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that allowed a widow to inherit her deceased husband's estate, overturning concurrent lower court findings. The core legal question was whether a wife, divorced through Talaq-e-Biddat, is entitled to inherit if her husband dies during the iddat period, specifically before the ninety-day statutory period mandated by Section 7(3) of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961, has elapsed. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's decision. It held that the written divorce had not become final in accordance with Quranic injunctions or Section 7(3) of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961, as the husband died before the expiry of the ninety-day period. Consequently, the respondent remained the lawful widow and was entitled to inherit his estate, as succession opens at the time of death.

  Questions settled

  • Is a wife divorced through Talaq-e-Biddat entitled to inherit her deceased husband's estate if his death occurs during her iddat period?
  • Does a divorce become effective immediately upon pronouncement, or is a statutory waiting period required?
  • What is the effect of Section 7(3) of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961, on the finality of a divorce?
  • When does succession open in the context of a pending divorce?
  • Can a wife inherit from her deceased husband if he dies before the ninety-day period under Section 7(3) of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961, has elapsed?
  Read full judgment →
• Azharullah vs The State2025 YLR 402 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-30
  pre-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustforgeryprohibitory clausemala fidesbail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought pre-arrest bail after it was declined by the Additional Sessions Court, facing allegations under sections 408, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant and forgery of valuable security. The core legal question was whether the applicant had demonstrated extraordinary circumstances, victimization, or mala fides to warrant the grant of extraordinary pre-arrest bail, particularly when offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause. The Sindh High Court held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy requiring proof of mala fides or victimization, which the applicant failed to establish, as investigation reports and bank verification prima facie supported the allegations of embezzlement and forgery. The court dismissed the bail application, laying down the principle that the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 alone does not justify granting pre-arrest bail without showing foundational mala fides or improper motives behind the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is the sole consideration for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted as a substitute or alternative to post-arrest bail without establishing mala fides?
  • Is pre-arrest bail an extraordinary relief that requires proof of victimization or abuse of law for ulterior motives?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Fazal etc. vs Asj etc2025 LHC 5237 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-27Read full judgment →
• Azeem Javed and others vs The State and others2025 SHC 147 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-21
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausefurther inquiryPhytosanitary Certificatescorruptiondocumentary evidencetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants, Grade-17 Entomologists in the Department of Plant Protection, sought post-arrest bail after being accused of issuing Phytosanitary Certificates for rice consignments exported to the European Union without fulfilling legal requirements, allegedly causing loss to the national exchequer. The applicants contended that they followed standard procedures based on documents provided, that the primary responsibility lay with the exporters who were not arraigned as accused, and that the investigation was complete. The High Court of Sindh observed that the prosecution's case rested entirely on documentary evidence, the genuineness of which would be determined at trial. It noted that the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception. Since the investigation was complete, the challan submitted, and no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence was shown, the Court allowed the bail applications, emphasizing that continued pre-trial incarceration serves no punitive purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Whether offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail as a matter of rule?
  • Can bail be denied to an accused in a document-based case where the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted?
  • What exceptional circumstances must the prosecution demonstrate to bring a case within the exception to the rule of granting bail in non-prohibitory offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Azam Khan vs The State, etc2025 PHC 90 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-04-29Read full judgment →
• Azam Ali Shaikh vs The State2025 SHC SUK 1733 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-17Read full judgment →
• Azad Jammu and Kashmir Technical Education and Vocational Training2025 PTD 473 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief2025 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 18 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Ayesha Tayyab vs Station House Officer, Police Station Cantt. District2025 SCP 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-22
  criminal breach of trustFIR quashmentconstitutional jurisdictionentrustmentloanArticle 199Section 406 PPCSection 561-A Cr.P.C.police investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that quashed an FIR registered under Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code, for criminal breach of trust. The FIR alleged that the accused dishonestly misappropriated money given as a 'loan/trust'. The core legal questions were whether the High Court correctly quashed the FIR on the grounds that no offence was made out, and whether the High Court had jurisdiction to quash an FIR after the submission of a challan. The Supreme Court declined leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's decision. It held that 'entrustment' for criminal breach of trust does not encompass a loan, which is a contractual relationship, not a fiduciary one requiring the return of the specific property. The Court reiterated that High Courts possess constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to quash an FIR in exceptional circumstances, such as when no offence is made out from the facts, even after challan submission.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court quash a First Information Report (FIR) under Article 199 of the Constitution if no cognizable offence is made out from its contents?
  • Does the High Court retain jurisdiction to quash an FIR under Article 199 of the Constitution even after a challan has been submitted to the trial court?
  • Does a transaction characterized as a 'loan' constitute 'entrustment' for the purpose of establishing the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 405, Pakistan Penal Code?
  • What is the distinction between the High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, and its power to quash an FIR under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • What elements are essential to establish the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 405, Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayesha Iftikhar etc vs Federation of Pakistan etc2025 LHC 3791 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-22Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Ali son of Ali Bux Talpur vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1506 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-20
  chain of custodysafe custody of narcoticsbenefit of the doubtcontraband recoverycriminal appealmalkhana registernarcotics conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act for possessing chars. The core legal question concerns the integrity of the chain of custody, the safe custody, and the safe transmission of the recovered narcotics. The Sindh High Court held that glaring contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the date of receipt of the case property by the Malkhana Incharge—predating the appointment of the Investigating Officer—coupled with an unexplained delay and missing links in the custody of the evidence, severely compromised the prosecution's case. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution bears the strict mandatory burden to prove the unbroken safe custody and safe transmission of narcotics case property. Any unexplained gap, anomaly, or broken link in the chain of custody is fatal to the prosecution's case and entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt and an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between the testimonies of the investigating officer and the malkhana incharge regarding the date of receipt of case property break the chain of custody?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case when there is an unexplained interval between the seizure of narcotics and its deposit in the malkhana?
  • Is the prosecution legally bound to establish the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotic substances in order to sustain a conviction?
  • Does a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person regarding the guilt of an accused entitle him to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Ahmed Memon vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC KHI 2067 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-12Read full judgment →
• Awais S/o Abdul Hakeem, Javed S/o Manthar Ali vs The State2025 SHC SUK 1636 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-05
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitycircumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtrecovery from co-accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two applicants, Awais and Javed, in a case involving the murder of Mst. Fahmida Solangi. The applicant Awais withdrew his bail plea, leaving the court to adjudicate only on the application of Javed. The core legal question was whether the applicant, Javed, was entitled to bail given the absence of specific role attribution, the lack of independent corroborative evidence, and the fact that incriminating recoveries were effected solely from the co-accused. The court held that the prosecution's case against Javed appeared doubtful, as the circumstantial evidence did not sufficiently connect him to the crime. Emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the court granted bail to the applicant. The key principles laid down are that recovery from a co-accused cannot be used to justify the detention of another accused without independent evidence, and that the benefit of doubt at the bail stage must be extended to the accused where the prosecution case requires further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can recovery of incriminating material from a co-accused alone justify the denial of bail to another accused?
  • Does the failure to examine material witnesses during the investigation stage entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail where the prosecution case relies solely on circumstantial evidence that fails to specifically connect the accused to the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Khan, Rashid Umer vs The State2025 SHC SUK 617 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-03
  criminal appealacquittalmedical evidenceocular testimonybenefit of doubtFIR delayfalsus in uno falsus in omnibus
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of appellants Aurangzeb Khan and Rashid Umer for offences under Sections 324, 337F(iii), 337F(v), 337H(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a land dispute. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies between the ocular testimony and medical evidence, and the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt. It identified material inconsistencies regarding the anatomical location of the injuries, the absence of exit wounds, and the failure of the investigation to secure clothing or record independent witnesses. Applying the principle that a single circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to acquittal, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reinforces the principle that medical evidence must corroborate ocular accounts and that unexplained delays in FIR registration, coupled with material contradictions, render the prosecution's case unreliable, necessitating the benefit of doubt for the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a material discrepancy between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding the seat of injury entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Is an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case in criminal trials?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce independent witnesses despite their availability at the crime scene?
  • Does the failure of the investigation officer to properly document the recovery and storage of case property create a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Attock Refinery Limited vs Federation of Pakistan etc2025 LHC 136, PTCL 2025 CL. 340 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-27Read full judgment →
• Attiq-Ur-Rehman vs Muhammad Nabeel Asghar and others2025 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 105 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-02-15Read full judgment →
• Atta UIIah etc vs Secretary E&SE Department, KPK Peshawar etc2025 PHC 136 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-03Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs Province of Punjab, etc2025 LHC 1282 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-20Read full judgment →
• Atta Hussain vs Altaf GouharKhan and others2025 PHC 152 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-25Read full judgment →
• Atif Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defense and others2025 IHC 510 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner Khwazakhela and others vs Muhammad Rashad2023 PHC 588, 2025 CLC 159 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-12-12Read full judgment →
• Assadullah and another vs The State2025 PCRLJ 144 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-11-30
  inherent powersacquittalcriminal trialSection 561-A Cr.P.C.Section 265-K Cr.P.C.absconding co-accusedabduction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking acquittal in a criminal case registered under Sections 494, 365-B, 34, 109, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners had previously moved an application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the trial court, which was dismissed. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A to acquit the accused when the trial has already commenced, charges have been framed, and co-accused remain absconding. The Court held that the petition was meritless, noting that the trial court is the appropriate forum to evaluate evidence after a full trial. The Court emphasized that powers under Sections 265-K, 249-A, and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should not be invoked to bypass the trial process, especially when multiple accused are involved and the prosecution has yet to present its witnesses, as premature acquittal would prejudice the case against absconding co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit an accused after the trial court has already framed charges?
  • Does the presence of absconding co-accused affect the court's discretion to grant acquittal to the remaining accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it appropriate for the High Court to bypass the trial process and evaluate evidence for acquittal when the prosecution has yet to produce its witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah vs Government of Balochistan, through Chief Secretary and others2025 CLC 475 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-10-23Read full judgment →
• Aslam Pervaiz Durrani & others vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC KHI 2151 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-28
  civil servant statusautonomous bodiesjudicial review of policy18th Amendmentservice structuredevolution of powerswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employees of the former National Trust for the Disabled, challenged the Sindh government's decision to classify their institutions as autonomous bodies, thereby altering their employment status from civil servants to non-civil servants. They contended that this reclassification was illegal, malicious, and violated their rights to career progression under the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973. The respondents argued that the petitioners were never civil servants but employees of an autonomous body, and that the administrative changes were lawful policy decisions following the 18th Amendment. The core legal question was whether the government's policy decision to classify the petitioners' institutions as autonomous bodies was subject to judicial interference under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the government's policy decision to designate the institutions as autonomous bodies was valid, as no mala fide intent was established. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the policy decision, emphasizing that judicial review is limited in such matters, and dismissed the petition, while noting that any future changes to service status must involve hearing the affected employees.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with a government policy decision under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in the absence of mala fide?
  • Does the reclassification of an institution as an autonomous body automatically entitle its employees to civil servant status?
  • Is the government required to provide a hearing to employees before changing their service status?
  Read full judgment →
• Aslam and another vs United Bank Ltd. and others2025 YLR 125 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-04Read full judgment →
• Aslam alias Ghaloo vs The State2025 PCRLJ 256 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-27
  criminal appealcompromisenon-compoundable offenceacquittaljudicial discretionsocietal harmonyhouse trespass
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas, which convicted the appellant under Section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an FIR alleging offences including attempted rape. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant and the complainant/victim informed the court that they had reached an amicable settlement and the complainant no longer wished to prosecute the matter. The core legal question was whether a court can accept a compromise and acquit an accused in a non-compoundable offence when the parties have reconciled. The Court held that while the offence under Section 452 is technically non-compoundable, the overarching interest of justice and the promotion of societal harmony justify accepting the compromise. Relying on established precedents, the Court concluded that forcing parties to continue litigation when they have reconciled serves no purpose. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The principle laid down is that courts may exercise judicial discretion to accept compromises in non-compoundable offences to foster peace and prevent the wastage of judicial time.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court accept a compromise between parties in a criminal case involving a non-compoundable offence?
  • Does the lack of desire by a complainant to prosecute a non-compoundable offence justify the acquittal of the accused?
  • Is it appropriate for appellate courts to set aside convictions based on post-trial reconciliation between the victim and the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Asjad Ullah vs Mst. Asia Bano and others2025 SCP 156, 2025 PLJ SC 307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-22
  custody of minorwelfare of the minornatural guardianremarriage of motherhizanatGuardian and Wards Act 1890best interests of the childvisitation rights
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld concurrent lower court decisions dismissing a father's application for minor child custody under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890. The core legal issue was whether a father residing abroad who had never met his daughter could claim custody merely on the basis of being natural guardian and the mother's remarriage to a stranger. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition by majority, holding that the welfare and best interests of the minor remain the paramount and overriding consideration in custody determinations, prevailing over statutory or traditional parental preferential claims. The Court established that a mother's remarriage does not automatically disqualify her from custody if the child's moral, physical, academic, and emotional well-being is best preserved in her care, particularly where the father showed prior neglect and lack of active association.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mother's remarriage to a person outside prohibited degrees automatically disentitle her from retaining the custody of her minor child?
  • Can a father claim custody of a minor solely by virtue of being the natural guardian when the child's welfare lies with the mother?
  • Is the right of custody (Hizanat) under Islamic law absolute or subject to the paramount consideration of the minor's welfare under the Guardian and Wards Act 1890?
  • Does a father's prolonged absence abroad and failure to maintain contact or provide emotional support disqualify him from obtaining minor custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Asim Iqbal vs Mateen Sadiq & another2025 SHC 580 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
• Asif Zahoor vs Muhammad Hanif2025 LHC 2211 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-07Read full judgment →
• Asif ur Rehman vs Ministry of Science of Technology & another2025 IHC 582 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-08-25Read full judgment →
• Asif Mehmood vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Health Services2025 IHC 560 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-19Read full judgment →
• Asif Mehmood vs Additional District Judge, etc2025 LHC 2359 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-10Read full judgment →
• Asif Masih, Qasim Iqbal, Sajid Majeed vs The State2025 SCP 52, 2025 SCMR 699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-12
  abductionrapezina with consentDNA evidenceconsensual intercoursecriminal appealacquittaldue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged the convictions of the petitioners for abduction and rape. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the charges of forcible abduction and rape, or if the evidence indicated consensual relations. The Supreme Court found the prosecution's case unreliable, noting the victim's failure to report any abduction or rape during multiple appearances before a Magistrate while residing in Darul Aman, and the absence of evidence regarding force. The Court held that the evidence proved the victim left home voluntarily and engaged in consensual intercourse. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions for abduction and rape, acquitted two petitioners, and convicted the third petitioner under Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for zina with consent. The Court affirmed the principle that charges of forcible abduction and rape cannot be sustained when evidence points to consent, and further emphasized that a person cannot be convicted of zina without being formally charged and afforded the right to defend themselves.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for abduction and rape be sustained when the alleged victim fails to report the crime during multiple appearances before a Magistrate?
  • Does consensual sexual intercourse resulting in an illegitimate child constitute rape under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a court convict a witness for the offence of zina without the witness being formally charged or given an opportunity to defend themselves?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Kamran & 02 others vs The State & 04 others2025 LHC 4802 · Lahore High Court · 2025-07-04Read full judgment →
• Asif Iqbal vs Mst.Shamshad2025 SHC KHI 2057 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-08Read full judgment →
• Asif Atta vs The State, etc2025 LHC 33, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 264 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-15
  contempt of lawful authoritycognizance of offenceprocedural irregularitySection 195 CrPCsummary trialjurisdiction of magistrateSection 174 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge convicting a police officer under Section 174 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for failing to produce an accused in court. The core legal question is whether a Judge or Magistrate possesses the authority to directly convict an individual for an offence under Section 174 PPC committed in their presence or in contempt of their authority, or if a formal complaint procedure is mandatory. The High Court held that the trial judge lacked the jurisdiction to convict the appellant directly. The court established that under Section 195 and Section 487 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a Judge or Magistrate (excluding High Court Judges) is prohibited from trying an offence referred to in Section 195 when committed before them or in contempt of their authority. Instead, the law mandates that the court must initiate proceedings by filing a complaint in writing to a Magistrate having jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned conviction was set aside for violating these procedural requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Judge or Magistrate directly convict a person for an offence under Section 174 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 committed in their presence?
  • Does Section 487 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prohibit a Judge or Magistrate from trying an offence referred to in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when committed before them?
  • What is the correct procedure for initiating proceedings against a person for contempt of lawful authority under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Asia Bibi vs The State, etc2025 IHC 304 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-05
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausepolice disclosurefurther inquirysupplementary statementinadmissibility of confession
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Asia Bibi, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 337 registered under sections 302, 365, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Khanna, Islamabad. The petitioner was nominated in a supplementary statement eight days after the FIR was lodged. The Islamabad High Court examined the arguments and the evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation, noting that disclosures made by an accused while in police custody are inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and that no eyewitnesses or incriminating recoveries directly linked the petitioner to the offense. The Court held that since the offense under Section 365 did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the case otherwise warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2), the continued incarceration of the petitioner served no useful purpose. The Court accordingly allowed the bail petition, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds, with the observation that findings were strictly tentative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether disclosure made by an accused while in police custody has any evidentiary value?
  • Does an offense under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • When can a case be considered one for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashraf vs The State2025 MLD 783 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-10-12
  criminal appealmurderocular evidenceinterested witnessforensic evidenceappreciation of evidenceconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Lasbella at Hub, which convicted the appellant, Ashraf, for the murder of Noorullah under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions addressed were whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through ocular and medical evidence, and whether the testimony of the complainant, being the brother of the deceased, should be discarded due to alleged interest. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution provided consistent, confidence-inspiring ocular testimony from multiple witnesses that was corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the crime weapon. The Court affirmed that mere relationship with the deceased does not render a witness 'interested' or unreliable absent evidence of enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused. Furthermore, the Court held that minor discrepancies in testimony do not undermine the prosecution's case, and that a positive forensic report regarding the recovered weapon remains valid despite procedural delays in transmission, provided no evidence of tampering exists.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of a prosecution witness to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Are minor contradictions or improvements in the statements of witnesses sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case?
  • Does a delay in sending a recovered weapon and crime empty to the Firearms Expert necessarily invalidate a positive forensic report?
  • Is the recovery of a crime weapon essential for conviction when the ocular account is found to be trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashir Atiq son of Atiq Ahmed vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1723 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-02
  pre-arrest bailfinancial fraudcriminal breach of trustdelay in FIRdocumentary evidenceSection 161 CrPCbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, Ashir Atiq, in connection with FIR No. 34/2025 registered under Sections 420, 408, 468, 471, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of fraud and the sale of fake plots. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail despite allegations of financial fraud. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained three-year delay, and notably, none of the alleged victims had recorded statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the accused was a flight risk or that evidence could be tampered with, as the case rested on documentary evidence already in police custody. The Court affirmed that mere allegations of fraud involving large sums do not automatically preclude bail, and disputed questions of fact are matters for the trial court to determine after evidence is recorded.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute a valid ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be denied solely on the basis of allegations of fraud involving a large financial amount?
  • Is the absence of statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a relevant factor in determining bail entitlement?
  • Should pre-arrest bail be granted when the prosecution's case relies entirely on documentary evidence already in its custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashique Husain Gorchani vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 SHC 764, 2025 YLR 761 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-31Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmed vs District & Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer District2025 LHC 432 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-21Read full judgment →
• Asghar Mehmood vs Ministry of Defence Production, Government of Pakistan & others2025 IHC 260 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-22Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs PTCL through its President & others2025 LHC 922, 2025 PLJ Lahore 516 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-13
  PTCL service regulationsstatutory rulesterms and conditions of servicetransferred employeesconstitutional petitiondisciplinary proceedingsT&T department employeesmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions filed by employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) challenging disciplinary proceedings and penalties imposed under the PTCL Service Regulations 1996. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners, consisting of former employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC) and the erstwhile Telephone and Telegraph (T&T) Department, were governed by statutory rules protecting their terms and conditions of service against disadvantageous alteration under the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996. The Lahore High Court held that erstwhile PTC employees did not possess statutory rules of service, as the mere administrative adoption of T&T rules by the predecessor corporation was an interim measure lacking statutory backing; thus, their petitions were dismissed. Conversely, the Court held that former employees of the T&T Department held statutory terms and conditions protected under sections 35 and 36 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996, making them amenable to constitutional jurisdiction, and therefore allowed the second set of petitions while enabling the employer to proceed against them under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the erstwhile employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation are governed by statutory service rules protecting them under the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996?
  • Do the former employees of the Telephone and Telegraph Department possess statutory terms and conditions of service protected by sections 35 and 36 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996?
  • Does the mere adoption of government or departmental rules by reference lend a statutory basis to the rules of a corporate entity?
  • Are disciplinary actions taken against former Telephone and Telegraph Department employees subject to the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali Chandio vs Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mehar and others2025 YLR 938 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-08
  acquittalillegal dispossessionframing of chargerecording of evidenceinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mehar, whereby an application filed by the applicant under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for acquittal in Sessions Case No.149 of 2023 was dismissed. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in dismissing the acquittal application prior to the recording of prosecution evidence. The Sindh High Court held that where cognizance has been taken and charge has been framed, criminal cases should ordinarily be disposed of on merits after recording prosecution evidence, and provisions like Section 265-K should not be invoked prematurely. The court reaffirmed the principle that if a prima facie case is disclosed, justice requires the trial to proceed so that the accused may either be honorably acquitted upon trial or face the consequences according to law. The application was accordingly dismissed with a direction to conclude the trial within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for acquittal under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. can be entertained before the recording of prosecution evidence?
  • Should a criminal case be allowed to proceed on merits after a prima facie case is established?
  • Whether the High Court should interfere with an order declining premature acquittal when the trial court has already taken cognizance and framed the charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Ishaq Suri & Others vs Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC 690 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-25Read full judgment →
• Asad Hussain vs The Controller General of Accounts Federal Co-operative2025 SCP 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil servicepromotionperformance evaluation reportadministrative discretionbackdated promotionservice appealnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal concerns the arbitrary withholding of a civil servant’s promotion to the post of Private Secretary (BS-17). The petitioner, the senior-most eligible officer, was denied promotion despite vacancy availability, with the department citing alleged deficiencies in Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs). The core legal question was whether promotion could be lawfully withheld based on non-adverse remarks and whether a civil servant is entitled to promotion from the date a vacancy arises. The Supreme Court held that the remarks in the petitioner's PERs were not adverse or disqualifying, and the withholding of promotion due to administrative mismanagement and procedural irregularities was arbitrary. The Court emphasized that civil servants should not suffer the consequences of internal departmental lapses. It established the principle that where a civil servant is eligible, promotion must be considered from the date a vacancy becomes available, and discretionary power regarding promotions must be exercised fairly, reasonably, and in accordance with law, rather than being used to delay advancement on administrative pretexts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant's promotion be withheld based on non-adverse remarks in a Performance Evaluation Report?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to promotion from the date a vacancy in their quota becomes available?
  • Does the failure of a department to timely process a promotion due to administrative mismanagement violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Can a department justify the delay of a promotion based on procedural irregularities in the recording of Performance Evaluation Reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Ali son of Yousuf Hussain vs The State2025 SHC 632 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-30
  pre-arrest bailfugitive from lawabscondencejudicial discretioncriminal procedurebail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by an accused facing charges under Sections 408, 411, 380, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether an accused who has previously absconded after being granted bail, thereby becoming a fugitive from law, remains entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. The Court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail. It distinguished between a mere "absconder," who temporarily evades the process, and a "fugitive from law," who persistently and deliberately avoids the jurisdiction. The Court established that while mere abscondence might not always preclude bail, the status of a fugitive—characterized by willful defiance of judicial authority and the issuance of non-bailable warrants—disentitles an applicant to equitable relief. The judgment reaffirms that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy, and an accused who has abused the court's trust by absconding cannot seek such relief, as doing so would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system and the administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused who has been declared a fugitive from law entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the issuance of non-bailable warrants or proclamation proceedings against an accused on bail ipso facto result in the cancellation of that bail?
  • What is the legal distinction between an absconder and a fugitive from law in the context of bail applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Abbas alias Achoo, Mst. Ghulam Zohra vs The State, sad Abbas alias2025 LHC 4326 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Arz Muhammad @ Arzoo and others vs The State2025 SHC SUK 529 · Sindh High Court
  abductionbenefit of doubtfree will marriageNikahnamadelay in FIRcontradictory statementsconstitutional petitioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence for offences under sections 365-B, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved the charge of abduction beyond a reasonable doubt, given material contradictions, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and recording statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and documented evidence of a voluntary marriage and constitutional petitions filed by the alleged abductee against her family. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution case was riddled with fatal inconsistencies, failure to challenge the validity of the marriage through proper legal proceedings, and lack of credible corroborative evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principles laid down include the rule that a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to acquittal, and that documented judicial proceedings and voluntary free-will marriages established by the defense heavily undermine subsequent allegations of forced abduction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions in the identification of accused persons and unexplained delays in lodging the FIR are sufficient to create a reasonable doubt warranting the acquittal of the appellants?
  • Does the production of a Nikah-Nama and a free-will affidavit by the alleged abductee in defense undermine a charge of abduction under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to challenge the validity of a registered marriage through proper legal channels weakens the prosecution's case of forced abduction?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the testimony of the complainant and prosecution witnesses regarding the occurrence and identification of the culprits is mutually contradictory?
  Read full judgment →
• Aryan Afridi son of Yaqoot Khan vs State2025 SHC 210 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-18
  post-arrest bailnarcotics smugglingCNSA 1997absconding accusedprohibitory clauseprima facie connection
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises out of FIR No. 32 of 2022 registered at Police Station ANF Gulshan-e-Iqbal Karachi, wherein the applicant, Aryan Afridi, sought post-arrest bail after being declared a proclaimed offender in a narcotics case where co-accused were already convicted and sentenced to long-term imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given his prima facie financial and operational nexus with the convicted narcotics traffickers and the large commercial quantity of drugs involved. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant failed to make out a case for bail, as tentative assessment revealed strong grounds connecting him to the principal supply and financing of the narcotics network, and the statutory prohibitory clause applied due to the gravity of the potential punishment. The key legal principle laid down is that post-arrest bail will be declined where a prima facie link between an absconding accused and convicted co-felons is established in a high-quantity narcotics case, especially where there is a risk of repetition of the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an absconding accused linked to convicted co-accused in a high-quantity narcotics case is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the existence of bank transactions and communication records establishing a prima facie nexus with drug traffickers bar the grant of bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Whether bail can be granted when the tentative assessment suggests the accused is the main financier and supplier of narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• Artistic Milliners Pvt. Limited vs The Collector of Customs (Export), PMBQ, Karachi & another2025 SHC 616 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Arshad Ullah S/o Mir Bahadur vs The State & another2025 SHC KHI 2237 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-09Read full judgment →
• Arshad Khan vs Farhana etc2025 PHC 108 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-12Read full judgment →
• Arshad Iqbal vs The State and another2025 IHC 124 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-10
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausefurther inquiryidentification paradesupplementary statementnon-nomination in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the Petitioner in connection with FIR No. 786/24, involving offences under Sections 302, 365, 381-A, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the Petitioner, who was not nominated in the FIR and against whom no identification parade was conducted, was entitled to the concession of bail despite the offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the Petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage and that implicating an accused through a supplementary statement without a disclosed source is legally deprecated. The Court affirmed the principle that even in cases falling within the prohibitory clause, bail may be granted if the case against the accused requires further inquiry into their guilt, particularly when the accused is not named in the FIR and no identification parade has occurred.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere fact that an offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically disentitle an accused from the grant of bail?
  • Is it permissible for a court to conduct a deeper appreciation of facts at the bail stage?
  • Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of a supplementary statement when they were not named in the initial FIR and no identification parade was held?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Iqbal Rana vs Salman Sajjad etc2025 LHC 4850 · Lahore High Court · 2025-07-08Read full judgment →
• Arshad Aqeel Awan vs National Cooperative Housing Society and others2025 IHC 410 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-20Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali vs Mst. Uzma& Ors2025 SHC 446 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-08Read full judgment →
• Arshad & another vs The State & another2025 PHC 146 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-17Read full judgment →
• Arsalan Arif and others vs Salma Gul and another2025 PLD Peshawar 54 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-02Read full judgment →
• Arif Pasha and others vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC HYD 1712 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-12Read full judgment →
• Arif Manzoor vs Federation of Pakistan and 02 others2025 SHC HYD 1455 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-16Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain vs Mst. Rukhsana Bano2025 SHC 308 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-06Read full judgment →
• Arif Ali & others vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC KHI 2159 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-01
  constitutional petitiondismissal from servicedue processnatural justicefinancial embezzlementdepartmental inquirymaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged their removal from service on September 10, 2020, for alleged financial embezzlement, arguing a violation of due process and natural justice principles, including the lack of a proper inquiry and second show-cause notice. The respondents contended that the petitioners unlawfully acquired funds and were removed under the Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules. The Sindh High Court held that Karachi Medical and Dental College falls within the ambit of Article 199(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, making the constitutional petition maintainable. The court observed that the departmental inquiry was skipped, creating procedural loopholes. While declining to remand the matter for a fresh inquiry due to the lapse of time and futility, the court held that since the petitioners were removed with a stigma without adequate defense opportunities, they are free to apply to the competent authority for a revival of proceedings from the beginning in accordance with due process and after hearing the petitioners. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does Karachi Medical and Dental College fall within the ambit of Article 199(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether a constitutional petition against dismissal from service is maintainable when departmental inquiry procedures are bypassed?
  • Can a court decline to remand a matter for a fresh inquiry upon finding procedural lapses in disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Arbab Saif Ali Khan etc vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary Revenue Peshawar etc2025 PHC 88 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-04-28Read full judgment →
• Arbab Imam Dino Samoon vs Tahir Yaqoob Bhatti, etc2025 IHC 50 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-01-27Read full judgment →
• Arbab Arshad vs National Bank of Pakistan2025 PHC 206 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-17Read full judgment →
• Arbab Ali s/o Mithan Khoso vs The State2025 SHC LAR 1981 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-01Read full judgment →
• Arbab Ali Shaikh vs The State2025 SHC LAR 1547 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-26
  post-arrest bailsodomyforensic evidenceheinous offenceminor victimcriminal bail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the applicant, Arbab Ali Shaikh, who is charged in an FIR for offences under Sections 376(3), 377, and 506/2 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the allegations of sodomy against a minor, the existence of a positive Forensic Science Laboratory report matching semen stains, and the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the material on record, including the prompt FIR, the victim's statement, and the forensic evidence, prima facie connected the applicant to the heinous offence. The Court affirmed the principle that in cases involving heinous offences against minors, bail cannot be granted solely on the ground that the statute provides for an alternative, lesser sentence, especially when the prosecution's case is supported by corroborative forensic evidence and the victim's testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be granted in a heinous offence solely on the ground that the statute provides for an alternative, lesser punishment?
  • Does a positive forensic report matching semen stains constitute sufficient prima facie evidence to deny bail in a case of unnatural offence?
  • Is the statement of a minor victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a valid basis for denying bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqsa Noureen alias Asima Bibi vs The State and another2025 LHC 5332 · Lahore High Court · 2025-08-18
  post-arrest bailstatutory bailfemale accusedhardened criminalproviso to Section 497cross-version casemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail was filed by a female accused facing charges under Sections 302, 336-B, 382, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a cross-version case. The petitioner sought bail on the statutory ground that she had been incarcerated for over one year without the conclusion of her trial. The core legal question was whether this statutory entitlement for female accused is absolute or if it is barred by the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' criminals. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the statutory right to bail for female accused is not absolute. It determined that the petitioner’s conduct—specifically, the alleged act of sprinkling petrol on the victim and setting him on fire during a robbery—constituted a heinous and atrocious mode of commission. Consequently, the Court found the petitioner to be a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' criminal, thereby invoking the exception under the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and denying the relief sought.

  Questions settled

  • Is the statutory right to bail for a female accused under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 absolute?
  • What criteria determine whether an accused is a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' for the purposes of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a female accused be denied bail despite having been incarcerated for more than one year without the conclusion of trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Zeb alias Munnu vs The State2025 PHC 76 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-20Read full judgment →
• Anwar Zaib vs M/s Rasheed Fabrics2025 SHC 130 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-03
  labour disputewrongful terminationburden of proofemployment relationshiptrade uniongrievance applicationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent findings of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Sindh Labour Court, which dismissed the petitioner's grievance application regarding alleged wrongful termination. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner had established an employment relationship with the respondent establishment and whether his termination constituted victimization for trade union activities. The High Court upheld the dismissal, ruling that the petitioner failed to provide cogent evidence of his employment. During cross-examination, the petitioner admitted he was employed by a third party, not the respondent, and failed to produce salary slips or examine co-workers to substantiate his claims. Consequently, the court found no merit in the allegations of victimization or illegal termination. The key principle laid down is that the burden of proof rests squarely on the employee to establish an employment relationship through reliable evidence; without such proof, claims of wrongful termination or victimization cannot be sustained. Although a worker may challenge termination after receiving final dues, this right is contingent upon first proving the existence of an employment relationship.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof lie on the employee to establish an employment relationship in a grievance application?
  • Can a worker challenge their termination in a labour court after receiving full and final settlement of dues?
  • Does an irregularity in the examination of an attorney instead of the principal party necessitate a remand for retrial under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Majid and others vs Emirates Bank International PJSC (Formerly2025 SHC 450 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-21Read full judgment →
• Anwar Kamal Pasha vs Mst. Aziza Jalil (since deceased) Through her legal2025 SHC KHI 1559 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-27Read full judgment →
• Anjuman Dukandaran Samdani Market vs Chairman, Market Committee /2025 LHC 3290 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Anees Ur Rehman vs The State and another2025 YLR 1094 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-25
  postmortem delayextra-judicial confessionocular evidenceunwitnessed occurrencebenefit of doubtdelay in FIRSection 103 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against the conviction and sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a revision petition for enhancement of sentence, arising from a trial concerning a wife's murder. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony from a child witness not initially named in the FIR or preliminary investigation, the evidentiary value of an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession, and the impact of unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the postmortem examination. The Lahore High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to an unexplained delay in reporting the crime, a 31-hour delay in conducting the postmortem indicating prior consultations, the unreliability of the solitary eye-witness whose presence at the scene was refuted by rescue personnel and initial investigation documents, and the inherently weak nature of the alleged extra-judicial confession. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in conducting a postmortem examination suggest time spent on preliminary inquiry and consultation by the prosecution?
  • Can an extra-judicial confession serve as the sole basis for conviction on a capital charge without strong independent corroboration?
  • Does non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalidate the recovery of ordinary items in a criminal trial?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt where the prosecution fails to establish its case independently, regardless of the defence plea under Section 342 CrPC?
  Read full judgment →
• Anayat Ullah vs Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, and 2 others2025 YLR 784 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-21Read full judgment →
• Anam Haseeb vs The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore2025 LHC 1381, 2025 PLJ Lahore 559 · Lahore High Court
  discharge from servicecivil judgedepartmental examinationgrace marksprobationlimitationcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal was filed under Section 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991, challenging the notification discharging the appellant from service as a Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate and the order rejecting her representation for the grant of grace marks under Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Judges Departmental Examination Rules, 1991. Having failed the departmental examinations in all four permissible attempts, the appellant was discharged under Section 5(3)(a) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. She contended that she was discriminated against as her batchmates were granted grace marks. The Tribunal observed that, according to established departmental practice, grace marks up to 5% are only awarded to candidates failing in a single paper, whereas the appellant had failed in multiple papers. The Tribunal held that departmental practice and consistent interpretation of rules must be deferred to, and no discrimination occurred. Additionally, the appeal was found to be time-barred as the appellant failed to provide a sufficient, day-to-day explanation for the delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on both merits and limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant on probation who fails to pass the mandatory departmental examinations within the prescribed attempts can be lawfully discharged under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • Can a candidate claim discrimination in the non-award of grace marks if departmental practice consistently limits such marks to candidates failing in only one subject, whereas the candidate failed in multiple subjects?
  • Does a subsequent attempt at a departmental examination without challenging previous results constitute acquiescence to those results?
  • What standard of explanation is required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, to condone a delay in filing a service appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Amna Fayyaz vs Additional District Judge (West), Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 180 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-19Read full judgment →
• Ammar Bashir vs Irfan Shafi Khokhar & others2025 SCP 189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-09
  election petitionprocedural complianceverification on oathelectoral disputeElection TribunalElections Act 2017Code of Civil Procedure 1908rejection of petitionProvincial Assembly election
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerned an electoral dispute challenging the election of a candidate to the Provincial Assembly of Punjab. The appellant alleged unfair consolidation of results and corrupt practices, but his election petition was rejected by the Election Tribunal for non-compliance with procedural requirements. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the petition solely on grounds of procedural non-compliance. The Court held that an election petition is a statutory procedure requiring strict adherence to the Elections Act, 2017, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It affirmed that verification on oath, as mandated by Section 144(4) of the Elections Act, 2017, read with Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is a compulsory requirement with penal consequences. The Court found the appellant's petition lacked proper verification, specifically failing to establish the appellant's physical presence, identification by CNIC, and clarity on the oath's administration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is an election petition a statutory procedure requiring strict adherence to the Elections Act, 2017?
  • Is the verification on oath of an election petition a mandatory requirement or a mere formality?
  • What are the essential requirements for valid attestation of the verification of an election petition by an Oath Commissioner?
  • Can an election petition be rejected solely on the grounds of non-compliance with procedural requirements for filing?
  • What are the consequences of non-compliance with the verification requirements for an election petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Ammar Aziz vs Lahore High Court, Lahore & others2025 LHC 2152 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-21
  public appointmentlocus poenitentiaevoid ab initiotransparent recruitmentservice appealconstitutional rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated matter involves service appeals challenging the withdrawal of the appellants' appointments as Assistant Registrars and Admin Office Coordinators in the Lahore High Court, as well as an appeal contesting other appointments, promotions, and increments granted in violation of applicable laws and rules. The core legal questions concern whether initial appointments made without a transparent recruitment process, advertisement, or competitive examination can be sustained, whether the principle of locus poenitentiae protects such void appointments, and the scope of the precedent in Ch. Muhammad Akram following Gul Tez Khan Marwat. The court dismissed the appeals regarding the withdrawal of appointments, holding that appointments made in blatant disregard of transparent recruitment rules are void ab initio and cannot be legitimized by the doctrine of locus poenitentiae or the passage of time. The key principles laid down include that what is invalid from the beginning cannot be validated by time (quod ab initio non valet, in tractu temporis non convalescit), that public employment must strictly adhere to constitutional guarantees of merit and non-discrimination, and that the rule in Ch. Muhammad Akram remains applicable on merits despite subsequent procedural clarifications.

  Questions settled

  • Can the doctrine of locus poenitentiae be invoked to protect public appointments that were made without following a transparent recruitment process and are void ab initio?
  • Whether appointments made to permanent posts without public advertisement, eligibility determination, and competitive examination can confer any legally enforceable rights upon the appointees?
  • Does the judgment in Gul Tez Khan Marwat overrule the substantive merits and directives laid down in Ch. Muhammad Akram regarding illegal appointments and absorptions?
  • Whether reliance solely on interviews without objective criteria and written examinations violates the fundamental right to equal opportunity in public employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Amma Foundation (Trust) & Barkati Foundation vs The Province of Sindh &2025 SHC KHI 1883 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-15Read full judgment →
• Amjad vs Khuda Bano2025 SHC 310 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-11Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hussain Sahito vs The State2025 SHC 1625 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-05
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausebenefit of doubtfinancial liabilitydelay in FIR registrationcriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Amjad Hussain Sahito, in connection with FIR No. 18/2025 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the prosecution's allegations of a settled financial liability and the existence of an agreement (Iqrar Nama), versus the applicant's claims of false implication, unexplained delay in FIR registration, and the non-prohibitory nature of the offence. The Court held that the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail. The ratio rests on significant contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, specifically the discrepancy between the dates of the alleged account settlement and the Iqrar Nama, alongside the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The Court reaffirmed the principle that when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception, and that any reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case must be resolved in favour of the accused.

  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?
  • Should the benefit of doubt regarding the authenticity of prosecution documents be extended to the accused at the bail stage?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR in a cheque dishonour case entitle the accused to the concession of bail?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad and Irfan vs The State2025 SCP 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-12
  delayed FIRbenefit of doubtcriminal appealcapital punishmentsodomymurdercontradictions in evidencepolice consultation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for murder and sodomy under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions revolved around the effect of an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), the presence of material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, and whether an FIR lodged after preliminary consultation and inquiry loses its evidentiary value. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, holding that an inordinate and unexplained delay in registering an FIR, combined with proof that it was lodged after consultation and preliminary police inquiry, severely impairs the veracity of the prosecution's case and creates serious doubts. Reaffirming the golden rule of criminal jurisprudence, the Court held that where the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of the doubt must invariably be extended to the accused, resulting in their acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging an FIR on the prosecution's case?
  • Does an FIR registered after preliminary inquiry and consultation lose its evidentiary value?
  • When should the benefit of the doubt be extended to an accused person in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali and others vs Anwar Shah and others2025 SCMR 211, 2025 PLJ SC 89 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-21
  Ejectment suitOwnership disputeRevenue recordMutationAdverse possessionUnregistered sale deedTrespasserCivil revisionExecution proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for ejectment filed by the petitioners' predecessor against the respondents' predecessor, which was initially decreed by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court reversed this decision, dismissing the suit, a finding upheld by the High Court in civil revision. The Supreme Court, upon examining the record, found that the respondents' claim of ownership was based on four mutations in the 'cultivation' column of the revenue record and an unproven unregistered sale deed, despite the property having changed its character from agricultural to residential decades ago. The Court noted that such mutations, especially in joint property where no specific possession was transferred, amounted to mere paperwork and did not confer valid ownership or possession. The Court held that the petitioners' predecessor was the rightful owner, and the respondents' possession, based on these flawed mutations, was that of a trespasser. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition for leave to appeal into an appeal, allowed it, set aside the judgments of the High Court and Appellate Court, and restored the Trial Court's ejectment decree with costs, directing expeditious execution.

  Questions settled

  • Can entries in the 'cultivation' column of revenue records establish ownership of property, particularly when the property's character has changed from agricultural to residential?
  • What is the legal effect of mutations recorded in the 'cultivation' column of revenue records for joint property where no physical possession is transferred?
  • Can a party claim ownership through adverse possession and subsequently deny the title of the original owner based on an unproven sale deed?
  • What is the status of possession obtained through mutations that are deemed mere 'paperwork' and do not reflect actual transfer of specific property or possession?
  • Should agricultural lands that have changed their nature to residential be excluded from the operation of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Ullah Shah and others vs Govt. of K.P.K and others2025 PHC 110 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-20Read full judgment →
• Amir Sultan Safi, Advocate vs Waqas Sabir2025 PLD Peshawar 50 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-28Read full judgment →
• Amir Shahzad vs The State2025 SCP 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-19
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtrecovery of crime weapondisintegration of bloodocular testimonyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal appeal by leave against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the appellant's conviction under Section 302(b) and Section 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but reducing the death penalty to life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant stole a spade from the complainant's house and inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased and injured the complainant when intercepted. The Supreme Court examined the reliability of the prosecution evidence, particularly the ocular account, motive, and weapon recovery. The Court found material contradictions between the FIR and witness depositions regarding whether the weapon was abandoned at the crime scene or later recovered from the appellant's house. Additionally, the presence of blood on the spade after 45 days was scientifically improbable, unexplained overwriting existed in the medical evidence, and no motive was established. Holding that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether recovery of a crime weapon from a residence can be relied upon when the prosecution's ocular narrative states the weapon was thrown at the crime scene?
  • Whether the alleged detection of blood on a recovered crime weapon after an extended period is reliable given the natural disintegration of human blood?
  • Whether material contradictions in witness testimony and unexplained overwriting in medical records entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Shahid vs The State and another2025 YLR 798 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-10
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaystatutory rightmurderfurther probetrial delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner Amir Shahid in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner has been incarcerated for more than two years without formal indictment and the delay in the trial's conclusion is not attributable to him or anyone acting on his behalf, he has earned a statutory right to be released on post-arrest bail. Additionally, the court noted that the case calls for further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as no incriminating material was recovered from him and co-accused had already been granted bail. The key principle laid down is that an accused person is entitled to statutory bail when the delay in concluding the trial is beyond their control and not caused by their own conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay when the delay in the trial is not attributable to him?
  • Does the absence of formal indictment and prolonged incarceration entitle an accused to statutory bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When does a case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Sajjad vs Ghulam Murtaza Ch.2023 LHC 4182, 2025 MLD 158 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-08Read full judgment →
• Amir Muhammad Khan and others vs Janat Gul and others2025 PHC 198 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-02Read full judgment →
• Amir Khan, ZahidAnjum vs The State, Amir Khan2025 SCP 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-12
  culpable homicidesudden fightlack of premeditationheat of passionexceeding self-defencealteration of convictionreduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard connected petitions arising from the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner/convict for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 ('PPC'). The Trial Court had awarded the death sentence, which the High Court subsequently altered to imprisonment for life. The convict sought acquittal, while the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence back to the death penalty. The core legal question was whether the act of firing a single fatal shot during an unpremeditated, sudden quarrel initiated by the unarmed deceased at the convict's shop attracted Section 302(b) or Section 302(c) PPC. The Supreme Court observed that the scuffle occurred at the spur of the moment without prior enmity, and the convict did not act in an unusually cruel manner or take undue advantage. Consequently, the case fell within the principles of erstwhile Exception 4 to Section 300 PPC, attracting Section 302(c) PPC. The Supreme Court altered the conviction to Section 302(c) PPC, reduced the sentence to fourteen years' rigorous imprisonment, and dismissed the complainant's petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unpremeditated killing arising from a sudden fight in the heat of passion falls under Section 302(b) or Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does firing a single shot at an unarmed aggressor during a sudden physical scuffle constitute exceeding the lawful right of self-defence punishable under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • How does the application of erstwhile Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 affect the determination of the offence under the modern scheme of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Khan vs The State, etc2025 LHC 5527 · Lahore High Court · 2025-08-21Read full judgment →
• Amir Khan etc vs Addl. Collector of Customs etc2025 LHC 131, PTCL 2025 CL. 391, 2025 PTD 490 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-29Read full judgment →
• Amir Baloch vs Sindh Information Commission and others2025 PLD Sindh 1 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-11Read full judgment →