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.

• Abid Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs vs Khadim Hussain (deceased)2025 LHC 4458 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abid Bashir S/O Muhammad Bashir vs SSP Complaint Cell Khi East & Ors2025 SHC KHI 2040 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-08Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahman vs The State2025 PHC 14 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-10Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs The State, etc2025 IHC 104 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-12
  criminal appealexplosive substancesbenefit of doubtchain of custodySection 342 statementprosecution sanctionsafe custodyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, by the Special Judge, ATC, Islamabad. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution proved the recovery of explosive substances beyond reasonable doubt and whether procedural lapses—specifically regarding witness testimony, chain of custody, and the absence of mandatory government sanction—vitiated the conviction. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, citing significant contradictions in the testimony of the Bomb Disposal Squad official, the failure to record his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and an unexplained five-day delay in transmitting samples to the laboratory, which compromised the chain of custody. Furthermore, the Court noted that the mandatory government sanction for prosecution was neither exhibited nor put to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reaffirms the principle that any lacuna in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to record a witness's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained if the mandatory government sanction for prosecution under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, is not exhibited or put to the accused during the Section 342 examination?
  • Does an unexplained delay in transmitting forensic samples to the laboratory create a fatal break in the chain of custody?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove the recovery of incriminating material beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah s/o Dilawar and others vs The State2025 SHC 326 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-27
  pre-arrest baildoctrine of consistencymalafide intentpolice encountercriminal jurisprudenceequal treatment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by applicants accused in FIR No. 10/2024, registered under Sections 324, 353, 506(ii), 147, 148, 149, 427, and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations of attacking a police party and damaging official vehicles. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the absence of injuries, the lack of corroborative evidence regarding vehicle damage, and the fact that a co-accused with an identical role was placed in column 2 of the challan. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail, citing the doctrine of consistency, which mandates equal treatment for co-accused with similar roles. The Court further observed that the prosecution’s failure to provide evidence of damage and the questionable identification of the accused suggested malafide intent. The key principle laid down is that the doctrine of consistency, which allows for equal treatment of co-accused, is applicable to pre-arrest bail proceedings, and that bail should be granted where there is a prima facie case of malafide intent or where refusal would cause irreparable harm.

  Questions settled

  • Is the doctrine of consistency applicable to applications for pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the placement of a co-accused in column 2 of the challan provide grounds for granting bail to other accused with identical roles?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted where there is a prima facie case of malafide intent by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Mir & another vs The State etc2025 PHC 24 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-19Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan vs Shaukat Zaman and others2025 YLR 620 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-11Read full judgment →
• Abdullah alias Muhammad alias Masab.,Muhammad Muavia alias Muaz2025 SCP 103, 2025 SCMR 986 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-13
  terrorist attackbenefit of doubtadverse inferenceeyewitness credibilitywithholding best evidenceexpert witness qualificationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the judgments of the Trial Court and High Court convicting and sentencing the petitioners to death and life imprisonment under Section 302(b) PPC, Section 7(i)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and other offences arising from a terrorist attack on a place of worship. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in light of the non-appearance of the complainant and named eyewitnesses, contradictions regarding recoveries, and withholding of material medical evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the petitioners. The Court held that when the complainant and named eyewitnesses fail to testify, an unlisted witness is disbelieved, and the prosecution withholds a medico-legal report, an adverse inference arises under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. It reaffirmed that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 can be drawn against the prosecution for withholding the medico-legal report of an allegedly injured accused?
  • Can the testimony of an eyewitness be safely relied upon when their name was neither mentioned in the FIR nor reflected in the site plan of the place of occurrence?
  • Can reliance be placed on the evidence and report of an alleged bomb disposal expert who admits to lacking educational qualifications and expertise in chemical analysis of explosive substances?
  • Whether the presence of a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution case is sufficient to entitle the accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wasim vs Messrs NTN Corporation and another2025 CLD 50 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waqeel and others vs The State and others2025 PHC 58 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Wali Achakzai Pathan s/o Wali Muhammad, Abid Noor s/o2025 SHC 244, 2025 YLR 1071 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-25
  narcotics controlsafe custodysafe transmissionchain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of the doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged transportation of narcotics. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the unbroken chain of safe custody and safe transmission of the seized contraband from the time of recovery until its receipt at the chemical laboratory. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to prove safe custody and safe transmission due to unexplained delays in depositing the samples, non-production of the warehouse in-charge, and missing register entries. The court reaffirmed the principle that any break in the chain of custody or failure to prove safe transmission vitiates the reliability of the chemical report, necessitating the extension of the benefit of the doubt and an acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to establish the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotics to the laboratory vitiates the conviction?
  • Does unproven safe custody of seized narcotics entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Is the non-examination of the warehouse in-charge fatal to the prosecution's case in narcotics trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid Rafique and 8 others vs Muhammad Miskeen and 12 others2025 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 9 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-12-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Shar vs The State2025 SHC SUK 1617 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-05
  post-arrest bailjoint recovery memofurther inquiryillegal arms possessionevidentiary valueindependent witnessespre-trial punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two post-arrest bail applications filed by the applicant, who was nominated in two separate FIRs for offences related to the illegal possession of arms and ammunition. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution's reliance on a single joint recovery memo for two distinct FIRs and the failure to associate independent witnesses in the recovery proceedings rendered the case one of further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant of bail. The Court held that the preparation of a joint recovery memo for separate cases is legally defective and inadmissible, significantly undermining the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the absence of independent witnesses in a populated area and the fact that the applicant was no longer required for investigation further weakened the prosecution's position. The Court affirmed the principle that bail is the norm and jail the exception, particularly when the case requires further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant, ruling that continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single joint recovery memo prepared for two separate FIRs possess evidentiary value?
  • Is the absence of independent witnesses in recovery proceedings from a populated area a ground for further inquiry in bail matters?
  • Does the potential maximum punishment under the Sindh Arms Act 2013, when left to judicial discretion, necessitate further inquiry for bail purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Khan vs Khush Muhammad Bhutto2025 SHC KHI 878 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Chohan vs Province of Sindh & Ors2025 SHC HYD 2222 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab Shah and Another vs Muhammad Islam Badshah and Others2025 SHC 206 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab Abbasi vs The State2025 MLD 555 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-25
  embezzlementscholarship fundsNational Accountability Ordinancecorruptionmisuse of authorityburden of proofcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a conviction by an Accountability Court for the embezzlement of scholarship funds under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal questions concern the jurisdiction of the National Accountability Bureau to initiate the reference, the sufficiency of evidence to prove the appellant's guilt, and whether the defense of discriminatory prosecution and enmity holds legal weight. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. It held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent oral and documentary evidence, while the appellant failed to rebut the case or provide credible evidence for his defense. The Court laid down the principle that under Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the offense of corruption includes the misuse of authority to gain benefits for others, regardless of personal gain. Furthermore, it affirmed that a plea of discrimination in prosecution is not a valid defense to absolve an accused of criminal liability, and that courts must maintain zero tolerance for corruption to protect the national economy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offense of corruption under Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 require proof of personal financial gain by the accused?
  • Can an accused successfully challenge a prosecution on the sole ground that other alleged culprits were not included in the reference?
  • What are the valid modes for the National Accountability Bureau to initiate a reference under Section 18(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Is a photocopy of a document admissible as evidence in the absence of proof regarding the loss of the original record?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wadood vs Syed Raziullah Qadri and others2025 SHC KHI 1949 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-24
  illegal dispossessionappeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocenceburden of prooflawful ownershipappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court acquitting respondents of charges under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appellant claimed lawful ownership and possession of plots from which he was forcibly dispossessed by the respondents. The core legal question was whether the appellant had established ownership, lawful possession, and illegal dispossession by the respondents beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the trial court's acquittal judgment warranted interference. The Sindh High Court held that an acquittal judgment carries a double presumption of innocence and appellate courts should exercise restraint unless the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or suffers from misreading of evidence. Finding that the appellant failed to produce convincing oral or documentary evidence of ownership, possession, or dispossession, the court upheld the acquittal and dismissed the appeal. The key principle laid down is that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court will not interfere unless the trial court's judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or capricious, and the burden remains squarely on the complainant to prove ownership and illegal dispossession through cogent evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal carrying a double presumption of innocence?
  • Is it incumbent upon a complainant under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 to prove lawful ownership and possession through convincing documentary evidence?
  • Does the mere oral assertion of a complainant suffice to establish illegal dispossession without supporting evidence or examination of inquiry officers?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor (deceased) through legal ... heirs vs Muhammad Hanif2025 SCP 68, 2025 SCMR 770 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-25
  pendente lite purchaserassignment of interestOrder 22 Rule 10 CPCbona fide purchaserrevision petitionstanding to sueland dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a multi-decade land dispute involving two rounds of litigation over state land originally auctioned to Fazal, Rustam, and Hanif. The core legal question was whether a purchaser of immovable property during the pendency of a suit qualifies as an 'assignee' under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 so as to maintain a revision petition, notwithstanding that his predecessor-in-interest was found not to be a bona fide purchaser without notice. The Supreme Court held that the sale of immovable property does not constitute an assignment under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, and an individual purchasing land pendente lite from a party whose claim has been defeated on the merits (specifically, a finding that the vendor was not a bona fide purchaser) lacks standing to maintain a revision petition. The Court laid down the principle that the transfer of title via sale is distinct from an assignment of interest, and the failure of a predecessor's title coupled with an adverse finding on bona fides operates as an insuperable barrier to subsequent purchasers seeking to intervene as assignees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a purchaser of immovable property during the pendency of a suit qualifies as an assignee under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a pendente lite purchaser have the standing to maintain a revision petition when the vendor's claim has been conclusively defeated?
  • Is a sale of immovable property synonymous with an assignment of interest for the purposes of procedural substitution or continuation of legal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC SUK 2062 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-19
  civil servantconstitutional petitionservice tribunalterms and conditions of serviceouster of jurisdictionreversionmala fideArticle 212
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged his reversion from the post of Junior Clerk to Sanitary Worker through a constitutional petition, alleging the order was passed with mala fide intentions without a proper inquiry. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition regarding the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, specifically when a Service Tribunal exists, and whether allegations of mala fides bypass this constitutional bar. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the Court ruled that the jurisdiction of the High Court is explicitly ousted in matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants. The Court affirmed that the Service Tribunal is the exclusive forum for such disputes, and this constitutional bar applies even where orders are challenged as mala fide, ultra vires, or coram non judice. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, directing the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies before the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a petition by a civil servant regarding terms and conditions of service?
  • Does the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution apply to service matters even when the impugned order is alleged to be mala fide or ultra vires?
  • Is a Service Tribunal the exclusive forum for adjudicating grievances related to the terms and conditions of service for civil servants in Sindh?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Government Of Punjab through Secretary Taxes, Revenue2025 LHC 4190 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Khan vs Umar Ayar2025 SCP 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-10
  Pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act 1987Revisional jurisdictionCode of Civil Procedure 1908Proof of knowledgeInformer's evidenceConcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This direct appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed a pre-emption suit. The appellant had filed a suit for possession through pre-emption, which was initially dismissed by the Trial Court but decreed by the Additional District Judge. The High Court, in revision, set aside the appellate court's decision, dismissing the pre-emption suit. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was the validity and proof of 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' under Section 13 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987, particularly regarding the non-production of the informer of the sale. The Supreme Court held that the omission to produce the informer was a significant evidentiary shortcoming, rendering the appellant's claim of immediate knowledge uncorroborated. It affirmed that a revisional court can interfere with concurrent findings if they are based on misreading, non-reading, or misinterpretation of evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's judgment was maintained.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary requirement for proving Talb-i-Muwathibat under Section 13 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act 1987?
  • Does the non-production of the person who informed the pre-emptor about a sale affect the validity of Talb-i-Muwathibat?
  • Can a High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, set aside concurrent findings of lower courts?
  • Under what circumstances can a revisional court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Khan Adv vs Govt of Kp etc2025 PHC 230 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad vs The State etc2025 SCP 31, 2025 SCMR 639 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-24
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtillegal detentionexplosive substancesanti-terrorismprosecution evidenceacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction for the possession of explosive substances under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the accused's claim of illegal detention prior to the alleged arrest. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with significant doubts, primarily because the accused produced documentary evidence—a newspaper report—corroborating his claim that he was arrested two months before the date alleged in the F.I.R. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to associate independent witnesses or explain the suspicious circumstances surrounding the recovery. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and acquitted the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of doubt must be extended to an accused person as a matter of right, not grace, whenever a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to associate independent witnesses or explain the timing of an arrest contradicted by documentary evidence?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt if the prosecution fails to prove the date of arrest beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam vs H.B.F.C., Limited2025 LHC 5289 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam Arif vs The State2025 MLD 300 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-15
  criminal appealmisappropriation of public fundsanti-corruptionbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidenceconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for offences of misappropriation and forgery under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act-II of 1947. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, a District Program Manager in a human development commission, misappropriated funds allocated for women trainees under a government youth development program. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to bring home the charge due to material gaps in the investigation, lack of direct evidence, failure to examine key beneficiaries, and the dropping of co-accused who were originally implicated. The court laid down the principle that in cases of public fund misappropriation, the prosecution must establish its case through unimpeachable and trustworthy evidence, and any reasonable doubt arising from flaws in the investigation must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction for misappropriation of public funds can be sustained when the prosecution fails to examine the primary beneficiaries or trainees to verify non-payment?
  • Does the failure of the investigating officer to collect direct documentary proof or bank transactions linking the accused to the embezzlement vitiate the conviction?
  • Whether material contradictions and the exoneration of co-accused initially nominated in the first information report create reasonable doubt requiring the acquittal of the appellant?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Saeed vs Mrs. Mamooni K. Mohsin Ali Khan, etc2025 IHC 192 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The State2025 YLR 561 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-12
  criminal appealrobberybenefit of the doubtreasonable doubtpresumption of innocenceacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a trial for robbery. The core legal question was whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for robbery involving the use of a deadly weapon when no such weapon was recovered from the appellant and the co-accused was acquitted. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the complainant admitted the appellant did not use a weapon, and the acquittal of the co-accused undermined the prosecution's case. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside. The judgment reaffirms the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused. It emphasizes that conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence, and the benefit of the doubt is an inalienable right of the accused, not a matter of grace.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when no deadly weapon is recovered from the accused?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused in a joint trial necessarily create reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the remaining accused?
  • Is the benefit of the doubt a matter of grace or a legal right for an accused person in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Niaz Ahmed and others2025 SHC LAR 1512 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman S/o Shaukat Ali and others vs The State and others2025 SHC MPK 2075, 2025 SHC MPK 2076 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-20
  pre-arrest bailcross-casescommon intentionprohibitory clausetentative assessmentmala fidemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated applications for pre-arrest bail filed by several accused persons in connection with FIR No. 17 of 2025, registered for offenses including murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail given the existence of counter-FIRs and allegations of false implication. The Court held that the applicants failed to establish grounds for pre-arrest bail, noting that the prosecution's case was supported by specific roles attributed to the accused, corroborating medical evidence, and the recovery of incriminating material from the crime scene. The Court emphasized that the mere existence of cross-cases does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, particularly when the allegations involve serious offenses like murder. The Court reiterated that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy intended to protect against mala fide and abuse of process, not a substitute for post-arrest bail. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail applications, recalling the interim bail previously granted, as the allegations fell within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere existence of counter-FIRs or cross-cases automatically entitle an accused to the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail a substitute for post-arrest bail in ordinary criminal cases?
  • What is the standard for granting pre-arrest bail in cases involving offenses falling under the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Kahout vs Sajid Mahmood Chishti2025 IHC 284 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Faryad vs Government of Punjab etc2025 LHC 5162 · Lahore High Court · 2025-07-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq and others vs Chief Election Commission and others2025 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 49 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-11-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf Kasi vs Syed Niza-Ud-Din and another2025 YLR 657 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasool alias Farooque Ahmed & Ors vs D.E.O (Primary) & Ors2025 SHC 586 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-30
  writ jurisdictionpublic service recruitmentdisputed questions of factmerit-based appointmentconstitutional petitionservice matterfake appointment orders
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed constitutional petitions seeking the implementation of appointment orders for the position of Primary School Teachers (PST) in the School Education Department, District Dadu. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who failed to produce recruitment records and whose appointment orders were contested as fake by the department, were entitled to judicial intervention to enforce their employment. The Court held that the petitions were not maintainable, as they involved disputed questions of fact regarding the genuineness of appointment orders and the recruitment process, which cannot be resolved through writ jurisdiction without recording evidence. The Court emphasized that recruitment in public service is an internal departmental affair that must adhere to strict merit and transparency. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed because the petitioners failed to establish an undeniable legal right or demonstrate that their appointments were legitimate. The Court affirmed the principle that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 is not appropriate for resolving complex factual controversies that require plenary jurisdiction and the examination of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the genuineness of employment orders in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction?
  • Is the recruitment process for public service positions considered an internal departmental affair that courts should generally avoid interfering with?
  • Does the failure to produce recruitment records during a departmental scrutiny process preclude a petitioner from seeking judicial enforcement of an appointment order?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Abbasi vs Audit Department of Azad Jammu & Kashmir2025 PLJ AJ&K 122 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-01-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed Khanzada & another vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC 140 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed Khan vs The State & another2025 IHC 274 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-24
  criminal revisionseized propertyreturn of vehiclescustody of propertypersonal belongingscustoms actcode of criminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under Sections 435/439 read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, assailing an order passed by the Special Judge Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling, whereby the petitioner's application for the return of seized personal articles and a vehicle taken into custody during his arrest under the Customs Act, 1969 was partially dismissed. The core legal question was whether personal belongings and a vehicle seized at the time of arrest, which lack any direct nexus to the alleged offence, can be indefinitely retained by the investigative authorities as case property. The Islamabad High Court held that articles not forming part of the case property or lacking evidentiary value to the crime should not be unnecessarily withheld from their rightful owner. The court set aside the impugned order to the extent of the denied items, directing their release subject to surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that mere seizure at the time of arrest, without a specific demonstrated connection to the offence, does not justify the continued retention of personal property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether personal belongings seized at the time of arrest can be retained indefinitely by the investigating agency without proof of a nexus to the alleged offence?
  • Can articles that are not instrumentalities or proceeds of a crime be withheld under Sections 516-A and 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does mere seizure and possession at the time of arrest justify the continued retention of a vehicle and personal items by the state?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Quddoos & 2 other vs Khalid Yousuf2025 SHC KHI 1289 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum vs The State2025 YLR 984 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-07-23
  murder referencebenefit of doubtjudicial confessionforensic evidenceocular evidenceCCTV footage admissibilitycapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Criminal Jail Appeal and Murder Reference arising from a conviction and death sentence imposed by the Trial Court for murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through ocular evidence, a judicial confession, recovery of the weapon, and CCTV footage. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge. It found the sole eye-witness unreliable due to contradictions and lack of identification parade; the judicial confession inadmissible due to procedural irregularities and lack of voluntariness; the recovery of the weapon tainted by a 20-day delay in forensic submission; and the CCTV footage unproven as it was not forensically analyzed or properly authenticated. The key principle laid down is that medical evidence is merely confirmatory regarding the nature of injuries and cannot identify an accused. Furthermore, if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt as a matter of right, adhering to the principle that it is better for ten guilty persons to be acquitted than for one innocent person to be convicted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a judicial confession be relied upon if the magistrate fails to ensure the accused is not returned to police custody after recording it?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to identify an accused in a criminal trial?
  • Does a significant delay in sending a recovered weapon to a forensic laboratory diminish the value of the recovery?
  • What are the legal requirements for admitting CCTV footage as evidence in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum & four others vs Muhammad Shafi2025 PHC 192 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Cooperation2025 CLC 312 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer vs The State and another2025 IHC 54 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-16
  juvenile offenderjuvenile justice systemanti-rape actjurisdictiondiversionrestorative justicegender based violence courtquashment of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of a Gender Based Violence Court convicting the appellant under sections 376(iii) and 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question addressed is whether a Special Court established under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 has jurisdiction to try a juvenile offender without being specifically designated as a Juvenile Court under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The Islamabad High Court held that a Special Court under the Anti-Rape Act lacks jurisdiction to try a juvenile unless specifically designated as a Juvenile Court, and proceedings conducted otherwise against a juvenile are coram non judice and void. The court laid down the principle that trials of juvenile offenders must strictly adhere to the protective and rehabilitative framework of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, emphasizing restorative justice, diversion mechanisms, and the parens patriae doctrine rather than retributive adult sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Special Court established under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 has the jurisdiction to try a juvenile offender without being specifically designated as a Juvenile Court?
  • Does the failure to conduct a trial of a juvenile within the framework of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 render the proceedings coram non judice?
  • Can a case involving a juvenile offender be referred to the Juvenile Justice Committee for disposal through diversion when the complainant has expressed a desire to pardon the accused?
  • How do the overriding clauses of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 and the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 apply in the case of a juvenile accused of a scheduled sexual offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer Khan vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC KHI 2009 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nasir S/o Muhammad Essa vs The State2025 SHC KHI 2121 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-19
  narcotic drugsrecovery of contrabandsafe custodychemical examiner reportofficial witnessescriminal appealnon-association of private witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the possession of 40 kilograms of Charas, recorded by the Trial Court under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the recovery beyond reasonable doubt, whether the non-association of private witnesses vitiated the conviction, and whether the Chemical Examiner’s report met the required legal protocols. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and the factum of recovery through consistent ocular and documentary evidence. The Court affirmed that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony is not inherently suspect, and that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is expressly excluded in cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Furthermore, the Court held that minor discrepancies in testimony do not undermine the prosecution's case if the core facts remain consistent, and that the Chemical Examiner’s report, adhering to established protocols and guidelines, constitutes valid evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, dispense with the requirement of associating private witnesses during a search and recovery?
  • Can the testimony of police officials be discarded solely because they are official witnesses in a narcotics case?
  • What are the essential requirements for a Chemical Examiner's report to be considered legally valid under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Do minor discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses automatically invalidate a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Mateen vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC KHI1957 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs The State2025 YLR 1029 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-02-13
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabsconsionmere presenceprohibitory clausecommon intentionovert actdouble murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application arose from FIR No. 11 of 2021 registered at Levies Thana Kalat under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning a double murder. The applicant was accused of giving cover to main co-accused during the incident without any allegation of firing or playing an active overt role. The applicant contended that he was empty-handed, was not assigned a specific violent act, and had immediately reported his presence elsewhere to police due to feuds and fear of false implication. The Balochistan High Court examined whether mere presence without an overt act or shared common intention warrants further inquiry into guilt and whether prior absconsion bars bail. The Court held that mere presence at the crime scene without establishing active participation or common object does not disentitle an accused to bail. It further ruled that absconsion alone cannot defeat a bail application where a prima facie case for further inquiry on merits is established under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the High Court granted post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere presence at the scene of a crime without an overt act entitle an accused to post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does prior absconsion automatically bar an accused from being granted post-arrest bail if a prima facie case for further inquiry exists on merits?
  • Can an empty-handed facilitator accused of giving cover be granted bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs The State & another2025 PHC 170 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-04-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik Munhano vs The State2025 SHC SUK 1626 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-05
  post-arrest baildacoityfurther inquiryrobberydelayed FIRcriminal procedurestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Malik, who was charged under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the unexplained eight-day delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of any incriminating recovery, and the failure of the prosecution to establish the essential ingredients of dacoity as defined under Sections 390 and 391 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the accused caused or attempted to cause death, hurt, or wrongful restraint, which are necessary elements for the offence of robbery and, by extension, dacoity. Consequently, the Court determined that the applicant's case fell within the ambit of 'further inquiry' as contemplated under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court granted bail, emphasizing that the absence of these essential elements and the lack of recovery rendered the case suitable for bail, while noting that the observations were tentative and would not prejudice the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a generalized expression of fear without specific allegations of hurt or wrongful restraint satisfy the legal threshold for robbery under Section 390 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a case be considered for bail under the 'further inquiry' provision of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the essential elements of the charged offence are absent from the FIR?
  • Is an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR a valid ground to doubt the prosecution's case at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed s/o Sachal Bhayo vs The State2025 SHC LAR 2006 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed and others vs Mst. Khalida Bibi (deceased) through L.Rs. and others2025 SCP 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-24
  Gift deedOral giftFraudInheritanceDeclaration suitBurden of proofLimitationAdverse presumptionPleadings and proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged a Lahore High Court judgment affirming the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts. The original suit sought a declaration with perpetual and mandatory injunction regarding inherited agricultural land, alleging that gift deeds were fraudulent and intended to deprive female heirs of their shares. The core legal questions revolved around the validity of the alleged oral and registered gift deeds, the burden of proof on the donees, and the limitation period for challenging such transactions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave, and upheld the lower courts' decisions. The Court reiterated that the essential ingredients of a valid gift (offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession) must be pleaded and proved, and evidence cannot extend beyond pleadings. It emphasized the heavy burden on donees to prove a valid gift, especially when excluding legal heirs, and affirmed that a declaratory suit based on fraud, seeking to establish title, represents a continuing right under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients for a valid gift that must be pleaded and proved?
  • Can a party lead evidence beyond its pleadings?
  • What is the burden of proof on a donee asserting a gift, especially when excluding other legal heirs?
  • Does the withholding of best available evidence raise an adverse presumption?
  • What is the limitation period for a declaratory suit seeking to establish title based on allegations of fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed and 11 others vs Saja Widow and 95 others2025 PLJ AJ&K 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-05-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Manzoor Ellahi2025 YLR 911 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-12-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Ansari vs Irfan Ahmad, etc2025 LHC 5077 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Lateef vs Services, General Administration and Co-Ordination2025 PLC (C.S.) 732 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-26
  superannuationdisciplinary proceedingspensionary benefitsabatement of proceedingscivil servantvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired government officer, challenged a notice for a personal hearing in disciplinary proceedings issued after his superannuation. The core legal question was whether departmental disciplinary proceedings could continue post-superannuation and whether such proceedings justified withholding pensionary benefits. The Court held that, pursuant to Fundamental Rule 54-A, disciplinary proceedings against a government servant who attains the age of superannuation before the completion of the inquiry automatically abate. Consequently, the Court ruled that the impugned notice was of no legal effect and that the petitioner was entitled to full pensionary benefits, including gratuity, G.P. Fund, and leave encashment, from the date of his retirement. The key principle laid down is that pension is a vested right and a legitimate expectation, not a bounty, and cannot be withheld due to incomplete disciplinary proceedings that abate upon the employee's superannuation. The Court directed the respondents to release all due benefits within six months.

  Questions settled

  • Do departmental disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant abate upon their superannuation?
  • Can a government department withhold a retired civil servant's pensionary benefits due to pending disciplinary proceedings?
  • Is a pension considered a bounty or a vested right for a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalique vs SSP Sukkur and others2025 SHC SUK 2044 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-29
  Ex-Officio Justice of Peaceregistration of FIRcriminal miscellaneous applicationhabitual litigatorburden of proofwater disputepolice protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal miscellaneous application filed by the Applicant challenging an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which dismissed his request for the registration of an FIR against private respondents. The core legal question was whether the Applicant had established sufficient grounds to compel the police to register an FIR regarding alleged criminal actions occurring on 06.05.2025. The Court observed that the history between the parties involved protracted disputes over water rights and irrigation, with the Applicant having a history of frequent litigation. Crucially, the Applicant failed to produce any medical evidence, recordings, or substantial material to support the allegations of injury or threats. The Court emphasized that in the modern era of digital connectivity and ubiquitous recording technology, the absence of any audio or visual evidence to substantiate the alleged incident undermined the claim. Consequently, the High Court upheld the impugned order, finding no justification to intervene, while clarifying that the dismissal did not preclude the Applicant from seeking legal protection should his rights to liberty or property be genuinely threatened in the future.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of medical or digital evidence regarding an alleged criminal incident justify the refusal to register an FIR?
  • Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace dismiss an application for FIR registration when the applicant fails to provide substantial proof of the alleged offense?
  • Does a history of frequent litigation between parties affect the court's assessment of a new application for FIR registration?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalique vs Nadeem Tarique Khan and others2025 CLC 215 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq Saleem vs Imran Hyder2025 SHC 396 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Lashari vs The Governor of Sindh through Principal Secretary2025 CLC 734 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-24
  sexual harassmentprovincial ombudsmandoctrine of electionconstitutional jurisdictionworkplace harassmentservice removalinquiry committee
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the order of the Provincial Ombudsman of Sindh, which found the petitioner guilty of sexual harassment and ordered his removal from service under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. The petitioner contended that the doctrine of election barred the Ombudsman from entertaining the complaint while a departmental inquiry was pending, and that the Ombudsman lacked the authority to impose penalties, being limited to making recommendations. The Court held that the doctrine of election is inapplicable in sexual harassment cases where the internal departmental inquiry mechanism is sluggish or ineffective, as this would deny victims an efficacious remedy. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under Section 10(2) of the Act, the Ombudsman possesses the explicit statutory power to impose major and minor penalties, including removal from service. Finally, the Court ruled that it cannot reassess factual findings in its constitutional jurisdiction unless such findings are perverse. The petition was dismissed, upholding the Ombudsman's order and emphasizing the necessity for efficient, time-bound departmental inquiry committees.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of election bar a complainant from approaching the Ombudsman if a departmental inquiry is already pending?
  • Does the Ombudsman have the power to impose major penalties, such as removal from service, or is the Ombudsman limited to making recommendations?
  • Can the High Court re-examine factual findings of the Ombudsman in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Khan vs M/s. Shevron Pakistan Limited & others2025 SHC KHI 1854 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Khan vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima Bibi deceased through L.Rs and others2025 LHC 3440 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Abbasi and others vs Government of Sindh & Others2025 SHC 696 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq vs The State2025 SCMR 751 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-04
  narcoticsdrug traffickingchain of custodysafe transmissionbenefit of doubtacquittalcriminal appealopium smuggling
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Abdul Haq, was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 9(d) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019 for smuggling opium and sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal to the Peshawar High Court was dismissed. The Supreme Court, hearing a petition for leave to appeal, converted it into an appeal. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized narcotics. The Court found significant contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the transmission of the seized opium samples from the spot to the police station and then to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a safe and secure chain of custody, rendering the chemical examiner's report unreliable. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the petitioner, emphasizing that any rupture in the chain of custody in narcotics cases necessitates the benefit of doubt for the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Must the prosecution establish an unbroken chain of custody for seized narcotics from recovery to forensic analysis?
  • What is the consequence of a rupture or inconsistency in the chain of custody for seized narcotic samples?
  • Can a conviction be sustained in a narcotics case if the safe transmission of samples to the chemical examiner is not proven?
  • Does the benefit of doubt extend to an accused when the prosecution fails to establish a safe and continuous handling of narcotic samples?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq vs Province of the Punjab through District Revenue Officer /2025 LHC 3200 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Hanan Tunio vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 IHC 460 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The State, etc2025 IHC 168 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-24
  criminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubtcircumstantial evidencemurderdouble innocencerecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad-West, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Section 302/201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had presented sufficient, trustworthy evidence to warrant a conviction, or if the trial court correctly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, who were not eyewitnesses, and noted that the Call Detail Record (CDR) lacked necessary authentication. Furthermore, the court held that the recovery of a weapon, absent other corroborative evidence, is insufficient for conviction. The court affirmed that the benefit of reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a right, not a concession. Emphasizing the principle of "double innocence" attached to an acquittal, the court concluded that no grounds existed to interfere with the trial court's well-reasoned judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of a weapon of offence, without corroborative evidence, constitute sufficient proof for conviction?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a right of the accused or a concession granted by the court?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a Call Detail Record (CDR) that lacks a certificate of ownership or voice identification?
  • Does the principle of 'double innocence' apply to an appeal against an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Chachar vs The State and another2025 MLD 336 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-01
  criminal transfer applicationtransfer of casejudicial impartialityapprehension of biasfair trialloss of confidencejudicial conduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Transfer Application was filed by the applicant seeking the transfer of Sessions Case No. 262 of 2022 from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kandhkot, to another court of competent jurisdiction. The core legal question concerned whether a case should be transferred when the accused has lost confidence in the trial judge following the judge's decision to issue a show-cause notice and remand the accused to custody after the accused expressed a lack of confidence. The Court held that the transfer was warranted to ensure a fair trial and maintain public confidence in the judicial process. The ratio established is that judicial impartiality and the perception of fairness are paramount; where a litigant has a reasonable apprehension of bias or loss of confidence in the trial court, the interests of justice may necessitate the transfer of the proceedings. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial patience and the duty of the court to operate without prejudice, ultimately ordering the case to be transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kandhkot, for expeditious disposal.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a criminal case be transferred from one trial court to another?
  • Does a litigant's loss of confidence in a trial judge constitute sufficient grounds for the transfer of a case?
  • What is the significance of judicial patience and impartiality in the administration of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and others vs Waqar Hussain Shah and 13 others2025 MLD 189 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed alias Meeda vs The State, etc2025 LHC 997 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-06
  attempt to commit Qatl-i-amdcumulative sentencingSection 71 PPChurtArshcriminal revisionparaplegia
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the convictions and sentences of the petitioner under Sections 324, 336, and 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a firearm assault that rendered the victim paraplegic. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred by imposing cumulative sentences for both the attempt to commit Qatl-i-amd (Section 324 PPC) and the specific hurts caused, in light of the limitations on punishment prescribed by Section 71 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the convictions and sentences were legally sound. The Court affirmed that while Section 71 PPC generally limits punishment for offences composed of multiple parts, it contains an express exception. Specifically, Section 324 PPC permits additional punishment for hurt caused during an attempt to commit Qatl-i-amd, and Section 337-W PPC mandates separate Arsh for each distinct hurt. Consequently, the Court ruled that cumulative sentencing for the attempt and the resulting specific injuries is legally permissible and does not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be punished separately for the offence of attempt to commit Qatl-i-amd under Section 324 PPC and for the specific hurts caused during the same incident?
  • Does Section 71 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 prohibit cumulative sentencing where the statute expressly provides for additional punishment for hurt?
  • Is an offender liable to pay separate Arsh for each distinct hurt caused under Section 337-W of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakeem vs The State2025 MLD 569 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-26
  confiscation of vehiclenarcotics smugglingsuperdaricontrol of narcotic substancesinnocent owneroil tanker
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by the Special Judge, CNS, Balochistan, Quetta, whereby an oil tanker owned by the appellant was confiscated following the acquittal of the main accused in a narcotics case. The core legal question was whether a vehicle used in the transportation of narcotics can be confiscated under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, when its owner was not implicated in the crime and there is no proof of the owner's knowledge or complicity. The Balochistan High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the confiscation order, holding that under Section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, a vehicle is not liable to confiscation unless the prosecution proves that the owner had prior knowledge that the vehicle was to be used for the commission of the offence. The court established the principle that an innocent registered owner cannot be deprived of their vehicle's custody in the absence of evidence proving their complicity or knowledge of the illicit activity.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle used for transporting narcotics be confiscated if the registered owner was not an accused and had no knowledge of the crime?
  • What burden of proof does the prosecution bear under Section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 regarding the owner's knowledge of the vehicle's illicit use?
  • Is an innocent owner entitled to the return of their vehicle on superdari after the conclusion of a trial where the primary accused was acquitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakeem Baloch vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2025 MLD 99 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez, Director and another vs The Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad2025 PTD (Trib.) 244 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2022-05-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar, etc vs Additional District Judge, etc2025 LHC 809, 2025 PLJ Lahore 602 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Umar Farooq2025 LHC 175 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The State and another2025 YLR 789 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-29
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryconflicting investigationsmurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Abdul Ghaffar, filed a petition for post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 99, involving charges under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after his bail application was dismissed by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting versions presented by the prosecution regarding his involvement in the alleged offense. The Court observed that the initial investigation placed the petitioner at the scene with a weapon but without attributing specific injuries to him, while a subsequent investigation concluded he was not present at the scene at all. The Court held that these contradictory findings by the investigation agency created a situation of further inquiry, thereby entitling the petitioner to the concession of bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the observations made were tentative and restricted solely to the bail proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of conflicting investigation reports regarding an accused's presence at the crime scene constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution's own investigation provides contradictory versions of the accused's involvement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Mandhai vs The State2025 SHC KHI 2096 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-25
  registration of FIRJustice of Peacecognizable offencecriminal miscellaneous applicationprocurement disputemala fide complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which dismissed the applicant's request to direct the Station House Officer (SHO) to register an FIR against the respondent. The applicant alleged that the respondent, an officer of the D.G. Park Baldia Uzma Frere Hall, Karachi, used abusive language and issued threats of murder during a procurement-related meeting. The respondent contended that the complaint was mala fide, intended to influence a separate civil action regarding the procurement, and asserted his presence was official. The applicant argued that the respondent was not a member of the Complaint Redressal Committee and that the alleged conduct constituted cognizable offences independent of the civil litigation. Upon review, the High Court found no defect in the impugned order. The Court held that neither the police compliance report nor the documents provided by the applicant established the commission of a cognizable offence. Consequently, the Court maintained the order of the Justice of Peace and dismissed the application, affirming that no case for the registration of an FIR was made out.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with an order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace refusing to direct the registration of an FIR when no cognizable offence is established?
  • Does the existence of a parallel civil dispute regarding procurement preclude the registration of an FIR for alleged threats made during a meeting?
  • Is the presence of an individual in a committee meeting, without official membership, sufficient to establish a cognizable offence when they are accused of verbal abuse and threats?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Khaskheli vs The District & Sessions Judge Kamber-2025 SHC LAR 2018 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-08
  pensionary benefitsvested rightservice record verificationsuperannuationjudicial stafffundamental rightsadministrative delay
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired Bailiff with 37 years of service, challenged the withholding of his pensionary benefits by the District & Sessions Judge, Kamber-Shahdadkot. The respondent cited discrepancies in the petitioner's domicile certificate and missing documents as grounds for withholding payment. The core legal question was whether pensionary benefits could be withheld based on trivial administrative discrepancies after decades of service. The Court held that pension is a vested right, not charity, and the department, as the custodian of service records, cannot raise objections regarding documents after an employee has served for 37 years without complaint. The Court found the withholding of benefits illegal, unjustified, and a violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights. It directed the respondent to process and release the pensionary benefits within a specified timeframe. The judgment establishes that pensionary benefits cannot be withheld on trivial pretexts, and departmental heads are obligated to ensure the swift processing of retirement benefits, as any delay constitutes a failure of duty and a violation of the retiree's rights.

  Questions settled

  • Can pensionary benefits be withheld by the department on the ground of trivial discrepancies in service documents after decades of service?
  • Is the payment of pension to a retired civil servant a vested right or a discretionary act of the employer?
  • Does the head of a department have the authority to withhold pensionary benefits due to alleged discrepancies in a domicile certificate submitted years prior?
  • What is the legal obligation of a department regarding the timely processing of pensionary benefits for a retired employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz, etc vs The State2025 IHC 158 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-20
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryAnti-Terrorism Actcriminal conspiracytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a criminal case registered at Police Station Secretariat, Islamabad, facing numerous charges including rioting, assault on public servants, dacoity, and offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given that they were not nominated with specific roles in the FIR, were arrested later on the disclosure of co-accused, and their case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The Islamabad High Court held that since no specific role was attributed to the petitioners in the FIR and their involvement required further inquiry, and considering that indefinite incarceration serves no purpose when the trial conclusion is not in sight, the petitioners successfully made out a case for bail. The court laid down the principle that where an accused is not assigned a specific role in the FIR and is arrested subsequently on a co-accused's disclosure, their complicity falls under further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused not specifically nominated with an overt act in the FIR is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the arrest of an accused on the disclosure of a co-accused after the incident make the case one of further inquiry?
  • Can bail be granted when the conclusion of the trial is not in sight and indefinite incarceration serves no useful purpose?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State2025 P Cr. L J 824 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-16
  dying declarationmitigating circumstanceunproven motivequantum of sentencemurder referencerelated witnessocular accountcrossexamination
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Abdul Aziz, under Section 302(b) and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his father-in-law and causing injuries to his mother-in-law, sentencing him to death and rigorous imprisonment respectively. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the deceased's dying declaration, the corroborative value of ocular testimony from related and injured witnesses, and the effect of an unproven motive on the quantum of sentence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through a consistent dying declaration, medical evidence, and reliable ocular accounts, and that the acquittal of co-accused did not impair the specific role attributed to the appellant. However, because the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive and the immediate trigger remained uncertain, the court considered these factors as mitigating circumstances. The High Court maintained the conviction under Section 302(b) but altered the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while upholding the conviction and sentence under Section 324 with concurrent execution and benefit under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration be acted upon without corroboration if the court is satisfied as to its genuineness and truthfulness?
  • Whether the non-proof of a specific motive alleged by the prosecution can be considered a mitigating circumstance in favour of reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused persons automatically vitiate the conviction of a principal accused assigned a specific firearm role?
  • Can the testimony of related and injured witnesses be relied upon when they remain consistent and confidence-inspiring during cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Commissioner for Workers Compensation and Others2025 SHC KHI 2091 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Azeem vs District Megistrate/Deputy Commissioner & others2025 PHC 226 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Alim Quadri vs Rauf Ahmed Rufi and another2025 SHC 114 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-04Read full judgment →
• Abdar Khan son of Abdul Jabbar Khan vs Shahid son of Muhammad2025 SHC 358 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abbasi Fazal-i-Haq vs Aamir Khan, Aag2025 PCRLJ 523 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-19
  criminal revision petitionvideo link evidencerecording of evidencecomplainant abroadconstructive presencewitness identity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed against the order of the trial court dismissing an application to examine the complainant, residing in Germany, through a video link. The core legal question was whether the evidence of a witness or complainant residing abroad can be recorded through a video link in criminal proceedings. The Peshawar High Court held that modern technology and the recording of evidence through video conferencing should be encouraged, and that the word 'presence' in relevant procedural provisions includes constructive presence via video link. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to arrange for the examination of the complainant via video link, subject to prior ascertainment of his identity. The key principle laid down is that courts may exercise their discretion to record evidence through video conferencing to prevent unnecessary delay, expense, or inconvenience, provided proper safeguards are maintained regarding the witness's identity and freedom from undue influence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the evidence of a complainant residing abroad be recorded through a video link in a criminal trial?
  • Does the word 'presence' in Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 include constructive presence through video conferencing?
  • What precautions must a trial court take when recording the statement of a witness through a video link?
  Read full judgment →
• Aatika Hina Mushtaq vs Secretary Special Education Government of the Punjab, Special Education Department Lahore, etc2025 SCP 158, 2025 PLJ SC 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  promotionservice rulesDepartmental Promotion Committeecivil servantright to be considered for promotionconstitutional rightright to livelihoodarbitrary defermentcivil bureaucracymeritocracy
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court heard a petition for leave to appeal concerning a Physical Education Teacher's deferred promotion to Lecturer Physical Education (BS-17) by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The DPC deferred the promotion, citing a need to amend the Special Education Department (Directorate of Special Education) Service Rules, 2006, and questioning the rules' provisions regarding seniority and qualifications. The Court held that the DPC acted without lawful authority by questioning the legality and enforceability of existing service rules and deferring promotions based on contemplated amendments. The DPC is bound to enforce the law as it exists and lacks the mandate to sit in judgment over the rules. The Court emphasized that while a civil servant has no vested right to promotion, they possess an enforceable right to be considered for promotion in accordance with law, rooted in Article 9 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which guarantees the right to life and dignified livelihood. Arbitrary obstruction or delay in career progression erodes the civil bureaucracy's independence and morale. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the DPC to consider the petitioner's case on merits within one month.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Departmental Promotion Committee defer promotions by questioning the legality or enforceability of existing service rules?
  • Does a civil servant have an enforceable right to be considered for promotion in accordance with law?
  • Can a Departmental Promotion Committee defer promotions based on proposed or contemplated amendments to service rules?
  • What is the scope of the right to livelihood under Article 9 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, concerning career progression?
  • Are service laws required to be transparent, predictable, and uniformly applied to ensure equal treatment in promotions?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Nazir vs The Federation of Pakistan etc2025 LHC 2868 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-08Read full judgment →
• Aamir Nawaz Minhas and others vs National Accountability Bureau and others2025 LHC 2125 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-08Read full judgment →
• Aamir Ali & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC KHI 2113 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-27
  deputationpermanent absorptionrepatriationcivil serviceFIA (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules 1975constitutional petitionlegitimate expectation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, police constables from the Sindh Police serving on deputation within the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), filed a constitutional petition seeking permanent absorption into the FIA. The core legal question was whether deputationists possess a legal right to be permanently absorbed into the borrowing department upon the expiry of their deputation term. The court dismissed the petition, holding that deputation is inherently temporary and does not confer a right to permanent absorption. The court ruled that the FIA (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1975, do not authorize such absorption, and upon the expiry of the deputation term, the petitioners must be repatriated to their parent department. The key principle laid down is that civil servants on deputation have no guaranteed right to remain in a post indefinitely, and the absorption of deputationists into cadre posts is legally impermissible, as it undermines competitive recruitment processes. The court emphasized that transfer and absorption are distinct concepts and that absorption is only permissible under specific statutory exceptions, such as for surplus staff.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant on deputation have a legal right to permanent absorption into the borrowing department upon the expiry of their deputation term?
  • Do the FIA (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1975, authorize the permanent absorption of deputed provincial police officers into the Federal Investigation Agency?
  • Is the repatriation of a deputationist to their parent department after the expiry of their deputation term legally permissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Akbar vs Additional Superintendent of Police, Bahawalpur, and others2025 SCP 65, 2025 SCMR 632, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 675, 2025 PLJ SC 272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-04
  Departmental inquiryDismissal from serviceCivil servantEfficiency and Discipline RulesNatural justiceFair trialDe novo inquiryProcedural irregularityService appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of a junior clerk from service by departmental authorities and the subsequent upholding of that decision by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner, dismissed on charges of inefficiency and corruption, contended that no regular departmental inquiry was conducted, and he was denied the opportunity to present witnesses or evidence in his defense, being dismissed merely on a fact-finding inquiry. The core legal question was whether the departmental inquiry adhered to the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1999, and the principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal and the departmental dismissal order. The Court held that a regular inquiry requires a fair opportunity to defend charges, including the right to cross-examine witnesses, and that the inquiry conducted was defective and not commensurate with the prescribed procedure. The matter was remanded for a de novo regular inquiry, emphasizing that procedural lapses vitiate departmental proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant be dismissed from service without a regular departmental inquiry that provides a fair opportunity to defend charges?
  • What constitutes a 'regular inquiry' under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1999, regarding the examination and cross-examination of evidence?
  • Do procedural lapses in a departmental inquiry, such as failure to record evidence or allow defense, amount to a violation of the right to a fair trial?
  • Is a 'discreet inquiry' a valid substitute for a regular inquiry when imposing major penalties like dismissal from service on a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• A.S. Babar Hashmi vs Federation of Pakistan Etc2025 IHC 120 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-20
  civil servant promotionante-dated promotionwrit jurisdictionservice tribunalvested rightArticle 212terms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner, a civil servant, filed a writ petition seeking ante-dated promotion to BS-21 and BS-22, alleging that the Central Selection Board (CSB) arbitrarily deferred his promotion despite his seniority. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate upon promotion grievances of civil servants and whether promotion constitutes a vested right. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It affirmed that promotion is not a vested right of a civil servant, as it is based on selection and fitness. Furthermore, the Court ruled that matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of service, including promotion, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunals. Consequently, the High Court is barred from assuming jurisdiction in such matters under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petition was dismissed accordingly, emphasizing that administrative tribunals are the appropriate forums for such service-related disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Is promotion to a higher grade a vested right of a civil servant?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate service-related promotion disputes under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Do matters concerning the determination of fitness for promotion fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of Service Tribunals?
  Read full judgment →
• A. Qutubuddin Khan (d/b/a "QM R Expert Consultants") and others vs2025 SHC 618 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-18Read full judgment →
• Zulqarnain vs The State etc2024 LHC 4579, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 26, 2025 MLD 692 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-24
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitycommon intentionlalkaraadvance punishmentmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This order disposes of two connected petitions for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioners, Zulqarnain and Muhammad Rafique, who were implicated in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, armed with weapons, caused butt blows to the deceased and raised a lalkara, while a co-accused fired the fatal shot. However, a subsequent police investigation concluded that the deceased's head and facial injuries resulted from a fall after being shot, rather than from butt blows, and that Zulqarnain was empty-handed. Additionally, no matching empties were recovered to link the petitioners' weapons to the crime scene. The Lahore High Court held that the questions of common intention, vicarious liability, and the nature of the lalkara required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Emphasizing that bail cannot be withheld as advance punishment and that liberty is a constitutionally guaranteed right, the Court allowed both petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a case for post-arrest bail is made out under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when subsequent police investigations contradict the ocular account regarding the specific roles and injuries attributed to the accused?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of advance punishment during the pendency of a trial where the accused's vicarious liability remains a matter of further inquiry?
  • What is the evidentiary significance of a 'lalkara' (instigation) in determining common intention at the bail stage when the armed accused did not fire directly at the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs The State thr. Dag Islamabad2024 SCP 350, 2025 SCMR 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-30
  criminal breach of trustembezzlementreduction of sentencemitigating circumstancesanti-corruptionsupreme court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises out of an impugned judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal against his conviction under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for embezzlement as an employee of the Utility Stores Corporation. The core legal question concerned the quantum of sentence and whether leniency could be granted given that the petitioner deposited the embezzled amount, did not contest the merits of the conviction, and pleaded mitigating personal circumstances involving his ailing wife. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but exercised its discretion to take a lenient view, reducing the substantive sentences to the period already undergone by extending the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and substantially reducing the fines. The key principle laid down is that while a convict cannot claim sentence reduction as a matter of right, the apex court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant a lighter sentence in appropriate circumstances—such as full restitution of the embezzled amount and compelling humanitarian grounds—where the offense does not affect the public at large.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can reduce the quantum of sentence to the period already undergone upon restitution of the embezzled amount and a plea of no contest?
  • Can the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be extended while reducing a sentence to the period already undergone?
  • Whether courts may take a lenient view in sentencing when the offense of corruption and embezzlement does not affect the public at large and mitigating personal circumstances are present?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs The State and others2024 SHC 1226 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-11
  criminal appealcheatingforgerybenefit of the doubtappraisal of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kotri, convicting the appellant under sections 467, 468, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly providing a fake online bank slip to purchase cigarettes through deception. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the prosecution had successfully proved the charge of forgery and cheating beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions, omissions in the FIR, lack of handwriting verification, and failure to investigate the actual account holder. The key principle laid down is that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of an accused, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused as an inalienable right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt in a charge of forgery and cheating?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Does a conviction stand when prosecution witnesses suffer from material contradictions and important facts are omitted from the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Mirza Altaf Hussain and 3 Others2024 LHC 4040 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-09Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Bhatti vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2023 SCP 278, 2024 SCMR 997 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-02
  re-pollElection Commission of Pakistanconsolidation of resulttampering with election recordElection Tribunalplenary powerssummary enquiryElections Act 2017
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 9(5) of the Elections Act 2017 arose from an Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) order directing a re-poll in 20 polling stations due to alleged post-consolidation tampering of election records. The core legal question was whether the ECP possesses the power under Article 218(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, read with Sections 8(c) or 9(1) of the Elections Act 2017, to order a re-poll after the Returning Officer has consolidated the final results under Section 95. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the ECP's order. The Court held that general or inherent powers under Article 218(3) and Section 8(c) supplement statutory law and cannot be exercised to supplant express provisions or after the election process has culminated. Furthermore, Section 9(1) re-poll powers apply only to grave illegalities affecting the poll result prior to or during final consolidation; disputes involving post-consolidation tampering require full trial evidence falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have the power under Article 218(3) of the Constitution to order a re-poll after the final consolidation of results by the Returning Officer?
  • Can the Election Commission exercise general powers under Section 8(c) of the Elections Act 2017 in matters expressly covered by statutory provisions?
  • Does post-consolidation record tampering fall within the scope of Section 9(1) of the Elections Act 2017 to justify ordering a re-poll?
  • Is an enquiry conducted by the Election Commission under Section 9(1) of the Elections Act 2017 limited to a summary nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali and others vs The State and others2024 MLD 576 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-26
  criminal appealtriple murderbenefit of doubtocular evidencedeath sentence commutationballistic reportacquittal of co-accusedmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions and death sentences imposed by the trial court for a triple-murder case involving offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account, the impact of the acquittal of co-accused on the remaining appellants, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding the specific role of one appellant (Zulfiqar Ali). The Court held that while the prosecution proved the guilt of two appellants (Shujaat Ali and Jabahat Ali) through consistent ocular testimony, medical evidence, and forensic reports, the evidence against Zulfiqar Ali was doubtful due to inconsistencies between the ocular account and medical findings regarding the bullet trajectory, and the lack of forensic evidence linking his weapon to the crime. Consequently, the Court acquitted Zulfiqar Ali, granting him the benefit of the doubt. Regarding the remaining appellants, the Court commuted their death sentences to life imprisonment, citing the acquittal of co-accused as a ground for caution in sentencing. The principle established is that reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles an accused to acquittal, and acquittal of co-accused can warrant a lesser sentence for remaining convicts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused provide a valid ground for awarding a lesser sentence to the remaining convicts?
  • Is the benefit of doubt available to an accused when the medical evidence contradicts the ocular account regarding the trajectory of a gunshot injury?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the recovery of the weapon attributed to the accused is not supported by forensic evidence from the crime scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair Saeed Sabri/Sain Zubair Shah vs The State thr. A.G. Islamabad and2024 SCP 70, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-14
  post-arrest bailblasphemy lawssearch warrantprivacy of homepolice investigationdue processIslamic injunctions
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of offences relating to religion under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner challenged the legality of the FIR, citing the lack of evidence for the charged offences, the failure to adhere to mandatory investigation procedures by a Superintendent of Police as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the illegal entry into his residence by police without a search warrant. The Supreme Court held that the police's failure to obtain a search warrant violated the constitutional right to the privacy of the home and that the investigation was procedurally flawed due to the absence of a Superintendent of Police. Emphasizing the necessity of strict adherence to both statutory law and Islamic injunctions regarding justice, mercy, and due process, the Court granted the bail. The judgment establishes that police must strictly comply with procedural safeguards, including obtaining search warrants, and that investigations into sensitive religious offences must be conducted by authorized officers to prevent misuse of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the police to obtain a search warrant before entering a private home violate the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is an investigation into an offence under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 conducted by an officer below the rank of Superintendent of Police legally valid?
  • Does the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 mandate that all actions detrimental to a citizen's liberty must be taken in accordance with law?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair Khan vs Commissioner Inland Revenue Jhelum Zone etc.2024 LHC 1441, 2024 PTD 1112 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-02Read full judgment →
• Zubair Khan and others vs Kachkol Khan2024 YLR 394 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →