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.

• Zubair Ahmed vs The State2024 PCRLJ 160 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-04-04
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaythird provisofourth provisohardened desperate or dangerous criminalmurderprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application was filed by the applicant accused under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving multiple murders, attempted murder, abduction, and armed robbery. The applicant sought bail solely on statutory delay grounds under the third proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., arguing that the trial had not concluded despite the lapse of statutory detention periods. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the statutory concession of bail could not be extended to the applicant. The Court observed that the delay was largely attributable to extraordinary factors including the Covid-19 pandemic, trial transfer due to threats against witnesses, and defense counsel's repeated requests for adjournments to cross-examine witnesses. Furthermore, considering the gravity, severity, and brutality of the alleged offenses, the applicant fell squarely within the exception of being a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., thereby disqualifying him from statutory bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused claim statutory bail as a matter of right when trial delays are caused by unavoidable circumstances like a pandemic and defense adjournments?
  • Whether the gravity and severity of an alleged offense alone can categorize an accused as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. without prior convictions?
  • Does the fourth proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. bar the grant of statutory bail to an accused charged with heinous and violent offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair Ahmed Chachar and others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 420 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Qureshi vs Ex-officio Justice of Peace and others2024 LHC 3636 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-06Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Khanum vs District Police Officer and 15 others2024 PCRLJ 1168 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-12
  cross-versionsecond FIRcriminal procedureconstitutional petitionprivate complaintinvestigationsameness test
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Ex-officio Justice of Peace, which directed an inquiry instead of registering a cross-version FIR regarding an alleged police encounter. The core legal questions were whether a second FIR can be registered for the same incident and whether a cross-version can be recorded after the trial has concluded. The Court held that, pursuant to the principle of 'sameness' and the precedent in Sughran Bibi, a second FIR for the same incident is impermissible. Cross-versions are to be recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as part of the ongoing investigation. Furthermore, the Court ruled that once a trial has concluded, reinvestigation or the recording of a cross-version is not legally viable. The key principle laid down is that while the police must investigate all versions of an incident, the registration of a second FIR is prohibited; after the conclusion of a trial, the only efficacious remedy for an aggrieved party to pursue a cross-version is the filing of a private complaint.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second FIR be registered on a new or different version of the same incident involving the commission of a cognizable offence?
  • Can a cross-version be recorded in a case after the conclusion of the trial?
  • Is a private complaint an adequate and efficacious remedy for an aggrieved party seeking to prosecute a cross-version after the conclusion of a trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Zorlu Enerji Pakistan Ltd. vs Naseem Banu & others2024 SHC 340 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-24Read full judgment →
• Ziauddin Ahmed & Co. (Pvt.) Limited vs Karachi Shipyard & Engineering2023 SHC 708, 2024 CLD 1170, 2024 PLD Sindh 374 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-31Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Younus vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 672, 2025 CLC 363 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-20Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan vs The State2024 SHC 920 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-04
  retrospective punishmentex post facto lawnarcotics controlcharas recoverysentence modificationconstitutional protectioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Control of Narcotics Substances, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(1) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, as amended by the Control of Narcotics Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022, for possessing 1160 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether an accused can be sentenced under an amended penal statute retrospectively for an offence committed prior to its promulgation. The Sindh High Court held that Article 12 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 protects individuals against retrospective punishment, prohibiting penalties greater than or different from those prescribed at the time the offence was committed. The court laid down the principle that ex post facto criminal legislation cannot be applied to impose a heavier punishment than what was applicable when the crime was committed, modifying the appellant's sentence in accordance with the law prevailing at the time of the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted and sentenced under an amended penal statute retrospectively for an offence committed prior to its promulgation?
  • Does Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan prohibit the imposition of a greater penalty than the one prescribed at the time the offence was committed?
  • How does the constitutional protection against ex post facto legislation apply to amendments enhancing punishments under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan vs The State etc.2024 PHC 20, 2024 YLR 2391 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-12Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan vs P.O Sindh & others2024 SHC 472, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 547 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14
  deceased quotacivil service appointmentconstitutional petitionrecruitment ruleseligibility criteriaSindh Civil Servants Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Zeeshan, filed a constitutional petition seeking appointment as a Police Constable in the Sindh Police Department under the deceased quota, following the death of his brother during service. The petitioner contended he was eligible for the position. Conversely, the respondents argued that the deceased quota policy does not extend to siblings, noting that the petitioner failed to meet the physical eligibility criteria (specifically, a one-inch chest deficiency) and that the deceased quota cannot be invoked a second time for the same family. The Sindh High Court examined Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, Transfer) Rules, 1974, which restricts the deceased quota to the children of a deceased civil servant. The Court held that the petitioner, being a brother, did not fall within the scope of the rule. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that appointments to the police force must adhere to prescribed recruitment criteria, including physical standards, and cannot be bypassed through quota claims not supported by law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the deceased quota under Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, Transfer) Rules 1974 extend to the siblings of a deceased civil servant?
  • Can a candidate be appointed to the police force without meeting the physical eligibility criteria prescribed in the recruitment rules?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable for a claim of appointment under the deceased quota when the petitioner does not meet the statutory requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan S/o Gul Hussain vs The State & another2024 SCP 253, 2024 SCMR 1716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-26
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyabsconsionfurther inquirymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Zeeshan against the State, involving offences under sections 302, 324, 427, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered vide FIR No. 1039/23 at Police Station Faqirabad, Peshawar. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in a murder and attempt to murder case, notwithstanding his prolonged absconsion and the role attributed to him, particularly in light of the rule of consistency given that a co-accused had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that upon a tentative assessment of the material, the case against the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry, and the rule of consistency applies due to the bail granted to the co-accused. The Court laid down the key principle that mere absconsion of an accused for a considerable period cannot, by itself, serve as a sole basis to refuse post-arrest bail when the case otherwise falls within the scope of further inquiry and the principle of consistency is attracted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere absconsion of an accused for several months is sufficient to refuse post-arrest bail when the case otherwise falls within the ambit of further inquiry?
  • Does the grant of bail to a co-accused entitle another accused to post-arrest bail under the rule of consistency?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted on a tentative assessment of the record when prosecution witnesses have not yet been examined at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Pervez (Late) through his legal heirs vs Muhammad Nasir2024 SCP 409, 2025 SCMR 495, 2025 PLJ SC 188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-21
  specific performanceagreement to sellimmovable propertytime of the essencecontra proferentemconditional contractbreach of contractreadiness and willingness
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property in favor of the vendee and dismissing the vendor's suit for contract cancellation. The core legal questions concerned whether the vendee committed breaches of the payment schedule, making time of the essence, and whether the vendor's revocation of the contract was legally justified when the vendor himself failed to clear the property's mortgage and obtain a bank NOC as stipulated. The Supreme Court held that the erroneous payment date in the contract was an obvious misprint and that the vendee had discharged his obligations, whereas the vendor committed a breach by failing to clear the property's encumbrances. The court reaffirmed that in transactions of immovable property, time is not ordinarily of the essence unless expressly made so, and a party in default cannot benefit from its own wrongdoing to cancel a contract.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an obvious misprint regarding a payment date in an agreement to sell can be construed against the party relying on it?
  • Does a vendor's failure to clear a property's mortgage and obtain a bank NOC constitute a breach of a conditional contract?
  • Is time ordinarily of the essence in contracts for the sale of immovable property?
  • Can a party that fails to fulfill its contractual obligations validly rescind the agreement and seek its cancellation?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Mughal and others vs Export Processing Zone Authority & others2024 SHC 1048, 2024 PLJ Karachi 167 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-11Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Malik vs Muhammad Nasir and 5 others2024 PCRLJ 1163 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-19
  acquittal appealpremature acquittaldouble presumption of innocenceillegal dispossessionfruitless trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with Section 8(A) of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005, challenging the trial court's order acquitting the respondents under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant contended that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the material on record and prematurely acquitted the respondents. The High Court examined the scope of Section 265-K, noting that the provision empowers trial courts to acquit an accused at any stage of the trial if there is no probability of conviction, thereby preventing fruitless trials and saving judicial time. The Court held that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and can only be interfered with if it is capricious, perverse, arbitrary, or based on a gross misreading of evidence. Finding no such infirmity in the trial court's reasoned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential pre-requisites for a trial court to exercise its powers of acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court exercise its powers under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on its own motion without a formal application by the accused?
  • On what grounds can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by a trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Asghar vs Province of The Punjab and others2024 LHC 5130, 2024 LHC 4436, 2025 PLJ Lahore 12, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 501 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-10
  compulsory retirementdepartmental inquiryshow cause noticenatural justicefair trialdisciplinary proceedingsconstitutional petitionmajor penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the compulsory retirement of the petitioner, a Junior Clerk at Cadet College, Hasanabdal, imposed without a regular inquiry. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings, specifically the issuance of a vague show-cause notice and the omission of a regular inquiry for a major penalty, violated the principles of natural justice and the petitioner's right to a fair trial. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned orders were illegal due to procedural lapses. The court emphasized that a show-cause notice must be specific, detailing the charges and the legal basis for the action, and that imposing a major penalty without a regular inquiry—absent compelling, recorded reasons—violates the mandate of Article 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, the court set aside the disciplinary orders, reinstated the petitioner, and directed the college to initiate de novo proceedings, ensuring compliance with the prescribed efficiency and discipline regulations. The judgment reaffirms that strict adherence to procedural fairness is mandatory in departmental disciplinary actions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the imposition of a major penalty without a regular inquiry violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • What are the essential elements that a show-cause notice in departmental proceedings must contain to be legally valid?
  • Can an authority dispense with a regular inquiry for a major penalty without recording specific, compelling reasons in writing?
  • Is a show-cause notice that relies solely on previous conduct without specific allegations of current misconduct legally sufficient?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan @ Salman son of Saleem vs The State2024 SHC 1042 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-08
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesprohibitory clauselesser punishmentfurther inquirycharas possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Zeeshan @ Salman, who was charged with the possession of 3170 grams of charas under Section 9(i) and 3-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amended) Act, 2022. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the statutory punishment range for the alleged offence and the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that since the statute provides for a punishment range, the lesser punishment of nine years should be considered at the bail stage. Because this lesser punishment does not exceed the threshold of the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The Court further noted that the applicant was not a previous convict and that the case required further inquiry. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to the furnishing of solvent surety.

  Questions settled

  • Should the lesser of two punishments provided by a statute be considered when determining bail?
  • Does an offence carrying a minimum punishment of nine years fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the pendency of other criminal cases a sufficient ground to deny bail to an accused who is not a previous convict?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaver Petroleum Corporation (Pvt.) Limited vs Saif Energy Limited2024 IHC 204, 2025 PLD Islamabad 219 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-24Read full judgment →
• Zarif Khan Hussain Zai and Brothers through Proprietor vs Government of Balochistan, through Secretary of Communication and Works PP & H Department Civil Secretariat, Quetta and 6 others2024 YLR 2353 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-04-02Read full judgment →
• Zareen Gul S/o Nazar Gul, Caste Pathan, R/o Post Office New Darband,2024 PHC 336 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zareef Ahmed vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1732 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-10-02
  narcotic substanceschemical analysissafe custodyrecovery of narcoticscriminal appealsentencingcharas
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the possession of 14.900 kilograms of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the recovery and the chemical composition of the entire quantity of narcotics seized. While the High Court affirmed the prosecution's proof regarding the recovery and safe custody of the contraband, it found the chemical analysis report ambiguous. Specifically, the report failed to demonstrate that samples were drawn from each of the fifteen recovered packets. Consequently, the court held that the chemical analysis could only be relied upon to confirm the nature of one kilogram of charas. Applying the principle established in Ameer Zeb v. The State, the court ruled that separate samples must be secured from each packet for chemical analysis; otherwise, the report represents only one packet. Accordingly, the conviction was altered to Section 9(b) of the Act, and the sentence was reduced to two years of rigorous imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a chemical analysis report covering multiple packets of narcotics suffice to prove the nature of the entire quantity if samples were not drawn from each packet?
  • Is a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove the chemical composition of the entire recovered quantity?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a consolidated chemical analysis report when separate samples from each recovered narcotic packet are not secured?
  Read full judgment →
• Zamir Hussain & others vs Abdul Khalique & others2024 SHC 386 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-06Read full judgment →
• Zameer Ahmed vs Asif Mehmood and others2024 PLJ AJ&K 110 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-12-20Read full judgment →
• Zaman Akhtar Advocate vs The Chief Secretary, Gob, (Chairman Bod) and another2024 MLD 1513 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-27Read full judgment →
• Zakirullah and others vs Muhammad Rehman and others2024 SCP 407, 2025 SCMR 430 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-21
  res judicatapartition suitrejection of plaintdeclaratory suitjoint propertyindependent rightcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that upheld the rejection of the petitioners' plaint in a suit for partition. The lower courts had rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing the principle of res judicata based on a previously dismissed declaratory suit concerning the same property. The core legal question was whether the dismissal of an earlier declaratory suit bars a subsequent suit for partition of joint property. The Supreme Court held that the right to partition is an independent right and cannot be barred by the principle of res judicata simply because a previous declaratory suit regarding the same property was dismissed. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, clarifying that the right to partition is distinct and not contingent upon previous litigation. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower courts' judgments, and remanded the suit for trial on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of an earlier declaratory suit bar a subsequent suit for partition of the same property?
  • Is a suit for partition of joint property barred by the principle of res judicata due to a prior unsuccessful declaratory suit?
  • Can a suit for partition be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of Order II Rule 2?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakir Said vs Returning Officer Na-5 District Dir Upper and others2024 PHC 3 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-09Read full judgment →
• Zakaullah and 6 others vs Ghazi Khan and 3 others2024 PLD Balochistan 75 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-26Read full judgment →
• Zain Tariq vs The State etc2024 LHC 6099 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-31
  pre-arrest bailrapefornicationconsentcriminal proceduremala fidebodily autonomyevidence evaluation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging rape. The petitioner contended that the incident was consensual fornication, citing investigation findings, and argued for the applicability of section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court addressed whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail despite the serious allegations. Dismissing the application, the court held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy reserved for cases demonstrating clear mala fide intent, which was not established here. The court emphasized that rape is a grave violation of dignity and bodily autonomy, and consent is invalidated by threats or coercion. It further ruled that the determination of whether the act constituted rape or consensual fornication, based on conflicting evidence like CCTV footage and WhatsApp messages, is a matter for the trial court to resolve during proceedings. The court affirmed that the victim's statement, corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, necessitates a trial rather than pre-arrest relief.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail an extraordinary remedy that requires the demonstration of mala fide intent?
  • Does the presence of CCTV footage or messages suggesting a relationship automatically negate the charge of rape?
  • Can consent be invalidated by threats or coercion in the context of rape allegations?
  • Is the determination of whether an act constitutes rape or fornication a matter to be decided at the pre-arrest bail stage or during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Zain Shahid vs The State and another2024 SCP 88, 2024 SCMR 843, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-29
  Anti-Terrorism Actfund raisingdefective chargecriminal intentstandard of proofacquittalpolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner under sections 11-F(i) and 11-H(i)(ii) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which was upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the legality and precision of the charge framed against the accused, the essential legal ingredients required to constitute an offence of fund raising under section 11-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the standard of evidence necessary for sustaining a conviction in terrorism-related cases. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and acquitted the petitioner. The Court held that the provisions of section 11-H require conjunctively proving both the act of raising or receiving funds and the specific intent or reasonable cause to suspect that such funds would be used for terrorism, which the prosecution failed to establish. The key legal principles laid down are that a defective or vague charge that misleads the accused constitutes a failure of justice, that criminal intent or reasonable cause for suspicion cannot be presumed without tangible evidence, and that convictions under anti-terrorism laws cannot be sustained on weak or speculative police evidence.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential legal ingredients required to constitute an offence of fund raising under section 11-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Does the framing of a vague or incomplete charge by a Trial Court vitiate the trial and cause a failure of justice under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can a conviction for terrorism-related offences be sustained solely on weak, unverified police evidence and uncorroborated spy information?
  • What is the legal scope of 'reasonable cause to suspect' under section 11-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Zain Pervez vs Election Commission of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1014 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-03Read full judgment →
• Zain Ali and another vs Additional Inspector General of Police and others2024 LHC 420 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-13Read full judgment →
• Zahur vs S.S.P District Badin & Others2024 SHC 1194 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-21Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Din vs Rehmatullah2024 PLJ Quetta 42 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmed S/O Umer Khan & 02 Ors vs The State2024 SHC 738 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-08
  post-arrest bailfree fightcounter versionfurther inquiryattempt to murdergunshot injurieshabitual offenders
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought post-arrest bail before the High Court of Sindh in a case registered under Sections 324, 109, 34, 337-F(iii), and 337-F(iv) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an armed clash between rival groups. The prosecution contended that indiscriminate firing took place between rival gangs, relying on the applicants' criminal record. Conversely, the defence argued that the incident was a free fight involving counter-versions where both sides sustained gunshot injuries, making it uncertain which party was the aggressor. The Court observed that essential ingredients under Section 324 PPC, such as intent and surrounding circumstances, alongside the mutual injuries sustained by both the complainant's side and the accused, necessitated determination by the trial court. Emphasizing that bail is a rule and refusal an exception in free fight scenarios, and noting that the case required further inquiry, the High Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicants subject to furnishing adequate surety.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the grant of post-arrest bail is the rule when injuries are sustained on both sides during a free fight between rival groups?
  • Does the mere pendency of other criminal cases or criminal record ipso facto disentitle an accused from the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether an incident involving a mutual clash with cross-injuries calls for further inquiry into the question of determination of the aggressor for the purposes of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmed Malik vs Malik Saif ur Rehman and another2024 IHC 286 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-16Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad vs District Accounts Officer and others2024 PLC (C.S) 135 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-13
  premature incrementcivil servicepay fixationpension revisionpromotionconstitutional petitionpay revision rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the refusal of the District Accounts Officer to grant a premature increment to the petitioner, a retired civil servant, following his promotion from BS-3 to BS-4. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having been promoted, was entitled to a premature increment under the applicable pay revision policy, despite the respondent's contention that such increments were inadmissible. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the premature increment. The Court determined that under Rule 10(i) and 10(iii) of the Punjab Civil Servant Pay Revision Rules, 1977, a civil servant promoted to a higher scale is entitled to a premature increment if the resulting pay increase is equal to or less than a full increment of the higher scale. The Court found the respondent's refusal illogical, noting that similarly situated employees had received the benefit. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the respondent was directed to revise the petitioner's pension accordingly, establishing that policy instructions regarding pay fixation must be applied consistently to all eligible civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil servant entitled to a premature increment upon promotion from a lower to a higher pay scale under the Punjab Civil Servant Pay Revision Rules, 1977?
  • Does the refusal to grant a premature increment to a retired civil servant, while granting it to similarly situated employees, constitute a valid administrative action?
  • Are the pay fixation rules applicable to a civil servant who has retired from service?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah vs The State through Deputy Director Intelligence and Investigation FBR and another2024 PTD (Trib.) 764 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2023-10-03Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah and others vs The State2024 MLD 813 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-28
  narcoticsCNS Actchain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealsafe custodyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which resulted in life imprisonment. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully established the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the integrity of the chain of custody, safe transmission of narcotics samples to the chemical examiner, and material contradictions in police testimony. The Sindh High Court held that numerous contradictions among prosecution witnesses, failure to prove safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered contraband, and the non-production of the vehicle used in the alleged crime vitiated the prosecution case. The court laid down the principle that a broken chain of custody renders the chemical examiner's report unreliable, and any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a break in the chain of custody and safe transmission of narcotic samples render the chemical examiner's report unreliable for sustaining a conviction?
  • Whether material contradictions between the testimonies of the complainant and the mashir are fatal to the prosecution's case in a narcotics trial?
  • Is the mere heinousness of a charge or the recovery of a large quantity of contraband sufficient to dispense with the proof of safe custody of case property?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahir Abbas vs The State etc.2024 PHC 194 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-07Read full judgment →
• Zahidullah Khan vs Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority & Others2024 SHC 1080 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-16Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ullah Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan, Through its2024 PHC 178, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 126 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zahid Maqsood Butt vs The State, etc2024 LHC 3316, 2025 PCRLJ 460 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-07
  criminal breach of truststay of criminal proceedingsSection 249 Cr.P.C.concurrent civil and criminal proceedingscriminal misappropriationquashing of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which had stayed criminal proceedings under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, pending the outcome of a civil suit regarding the status of the parties. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings for criminal breach of trust should be stayed solely because a civil suit involving the same parties and related facts is pending. The High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable, setting it aside and directing the trial court to proceed with the criminal case. The court reasoned that civil and criminal proceedings can run concurrently, as they involve different standards of proof and distinct legal outcomes. It clarified that Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not intended to stay proceedings due to pending civil litigation but is reserved for specific procedural exigencies. The principle laid down is that the mere pendency of a civil suit does not automatically necessitate the stay of criminal proceedings, particularly where the criminal court must determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be stayed solely on the ground that a civil suit involving the same parties is pending?
  • Is the power under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 intended to be used for staying criminal proceedings pending the outcome of civil litigation?
  • Does the decision of a criminal court affect questions pending in a civil court between the same parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2024 SHC 1234 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-31Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain & others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1104 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-23Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain & 15 others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 214 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-13Read full judgment →
• Zahid Anjum vs Additional District Judge and 5 others2024 MLD 911 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-22Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ali vs P.O Sindh & Others2024 SHC 368 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-30Read full judgment →
• Zafarullah Shaheen vs National University of Modern Languages (Num L)2024 IHC 242, 2025 MLD 882 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-05Read full judgment →
• Zafar, Mazhar, Feroz vs The State2024 LHC 579, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 609, 2024 PCRLJ 1738 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-20
  Ta'zircompounding of offencelegal heirsQisas and Diyatcriminal appealacquittalinheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against the conviction and sentencing of three appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Hayat. The core legal question was whether a compromise between the appellants and the surviving legal heirs of the deceased was valid and sufficient for acquittal, given that certain collateral heirs (brother and sister) refused to join the compromise. The Court held that in cases of Ta'zir, the right to compound an offence under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is restricted to the direct heirs of the victim who inherit at the time of death. Relying on the principle established in Muhammad Yousaf v. The State (PLD 2019 SC 461), the Court determined that collateral relatives do not qualify as 'heirs of the victim' for compounding purposes in Ta'zir cases. Consequently, the Court accepted the compromise reached by the direct heirs, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • In a case of Ta'zir, who qualifies as an 'heir of the victim' for the purpose of compounding an offence under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the right to compound an offence in a Ta'zir case devolve upon the heirs of a deceased heir of the victim?
  • Can a compromise be considered complete in a Ta'zir case if collateral relatives of the deceased refuse to join the compromise reached by direct heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Mehmood vs Muhammad Najeeb and another2024 IHC 48 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-27
  dishonour of chequeacquittal appealfinancial obligationburden of proofreasonable doubtsecurity cheque
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the appellant against the acquittal of respondent No. 1 by the Judicial Magistrate, Islamabad (East), in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant claimed he lent Rs. 20,000,000 in cash to the respondent, who subsequently issued four cheques that were dishonoured. The respondent contended that the cheques were blank security cheques given to a third party and denied any financial relationship with the appellant. The High Court upheld the acquittal, holding that to constitute an offence under Section 489-F, the prosecution must prove the cheque was issued with dishonest intention towards repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation. Since the appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence of the cash transaction, his financial capacity, or bank withdrawal receipts, the existence of a valid underlying obligation was not established. The Court affirmed that mere possession of a cheque is insufficient for conviction without proof of the underlying debt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere possession or issuance of a dishonoured cheque is sufficient to secure a conviction under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without independent proof of an underlying loan or obligation?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence of dishonest issuance of cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the existence of a financial transaction or obligation when the accused denies having any business relations with the complainant in a cheque dishonour case?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Khan vs Saddam Hussain and others2024 PHC 94, 2024 PLD Peshawar 140 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-14Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs G.T. Pharma (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive and 52024 CLD 376 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-13Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and others vs Muhammad Rafiq and others2024 SCP 265, 2024 SCMR 1791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-02
  Shamlat Dehjoint holdingdeclaratory suitexclusive ownershipco-sharerrevenue recordpartition proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by the defendants challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had accepted a civil revision and decreed the respondents' declaratory suit regarding a portion of Shamlat Deh (joint holding). The respondents had filed a suit claiming exclusive ownership of 332 Kanals of joint land based on long-standing possession and historical statements of four shareholders made during 1938-1940 partition proceedings, which never materialized into a formal mutation. The Trial Court and Appellate Court had dismissed the suit, finding no legal basis for exclusive ownership in a joint holding. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the maintainability of a declaratory suit claiming exclusive ownership in joint property without proof of proper partition or valid transfer. The Court held that a co-sharer or claimant cannot claim exclusive ownership of a specific piece of joint land merely on the basis of vague entries and unverified historical statements without formal partition or proof of valid acquisition of rights. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the concurrent dismissals by the lower courts, while granting liberty to the respondents to approach the appropriate revenue forum in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff claim exclusive ownership of a specific piece of land in a joint holding merely on the basis of long-standing possession without formal partition?
  • Whether a declaratory suit for exclusive ownership of Shamlat Deh land is maintainable on the basis of unverified historical statements of certain shareholders?
  • Does a revisional court have the authority to reverse concurrent findings of fact of lower courts without establishing any misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Hussain Bhatti vs Lahore High Court, Lahore through its Registrar2024 LHC 1809, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 624 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-24
  proforma promotionjudicial independencedisciplinary proceedingsretrospective penaltymisconductinefficiencyservice lawbail order
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the refusal of proforma promotion for a District & Sessions Judge, following disciplinary proceedings that imposed a penalty of withholding promotion for three years. The appellant was penalized for granting bail in a narcotics case, which the respondent alleged constituted inefficiency and misconduct. The core legal questions were whether a judicial officer can be disciplined for a judicial order and whether a penalty can be imposed retrospectively after a promotion has been notified. The Court held that the disciplinary action was unsustainable. It established that judicial officers enjoy independence in their decision-making; erroneous judicial orders are subject to appellate review, not disciplinary proceedings, unless malice or extraneous considerations are proven. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that penalties cannot be imposed retrospectively without express statutory authority, and once a promotion order has taken effect and created rights, it cannot be rescinded to the detriment of the officer. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and granted the appellant proforma promotion with all consequential benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can disciplinary proceedings be initiated against a judicial officer solely based on the exercise of judicial discretion in granting bail?
  • Is a penalty of withholding promotion valid if imposed retrospectively without express statutory authorization?
  • Can a promotion order that has already taken legal effect be rescinded or withheld to the detriment of the civil servant?
  • Does the disciplinary authority have the power to act as an appellate forum over the judicial orders passed by a subordinate judge?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Hassan Khan vs Habib Bank Limited2024 CLD 25 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-30Read full judgment →
• Zafar Hasan Khan and 2 others vs Messrs Habib Bank Limited2024 CLC 1068 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-15Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali vs The Collector of Customs (Appeals) and 2 others2024 PTD (Trib.) 1077 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2024-01-08Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali vs Province of Balochistan through Secretary Food and another2024 PLC (C.S.) 535 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-02
  res judicataestoppelconstitutional petitionillegal appointmentreinstatementjudicial disciplineservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed seeking the reinstatement of the petitioner to his former position as an Assistant Food Controller. The core legal question was whether a petitioner is entitled to reinstatement after their appointment had previously been declared illegal by a court of competent jurisdiction, a decision subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the matter was barred by the principle of res judicata, as the cause of action and the issue of the legality of the appointment had already been finally decided in previous litigation. The Court further established that one Bench of the High Court cannot sit as an appellate court over the judgment of another Bench of the same Court. Additionally, the Court ruled that the petitioner was estopped from seeking reinstatement because his conduct in previous litigation, where he sought the implementation of the judgment declaring his appointment illegal, constituted an admission of the illegality of his own appointment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction interfere with a judgment passed by another Bench of the same Court?
  • Does the principle of res judicata bar a constitutional petition where the subject matter and cause of action were previously decided by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Is a petitioner estopped from seeking reinstatement if they previously sought the implementation of a judgment declaring their own appointment illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali Abbasi, Shakeel Ahmed Abbasi vs Zafar Ali Abbasi, and others2024 SCP 267, 2024 SCMR 1773, PLJ 2025 SC (Cr.C.) 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-13
  murderbenefit of the doubtunnatural conduct of eyewitnessesdefective investigationrecovery of crime weaponpost-mortem reportdelayed FIRcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a criminal appeal against the conviction and sentence of death under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, the unnatural conduct of alleged eyewitnesses, doubtful recovery of the weapon under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, defective investigation, and delayed FIR registration. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower courts' judgments, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable eyewitness accounts, contradictory medical evidence regarding the time of death and rigor mortis, and flawed police investigation. The key legal principles laid down include that the testimonies of related witnesses must be scrutinized with greater care when their conduct is unnatural, that the absence of a written disclosure statement invalidates a recovery under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and that the benefit of a doubt arising from a defective investigation must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses can be relied upon when their conduct at the time of the occurrence is unnatural?
  • Does the absence of a written disclosure statement by an accused in police custody vitiate the recovery under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the medical evidence and post-mortem report directly contradict the ocular account of the incident?
  • What is the legal effect of a flawed and biased police investigation on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ahmed Shaikh s/o Abdul Hakeem vs Province of Sindh and others2024 SHC 326, 2025 MLD 14 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-24Read full judgment →
• Yusra Medical and Dental College (Private) Limited vs Officer Authorized, SECP and others2024 CLD 1447 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2024-02-06Read full judgment →
• Yusra Medical & Dental College (Private) Limited through its Chief2024 IHC 256 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-30Read full judgment →
• Yousuf vs Muhammad Akbar and others2024 CLC 1085 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-12-28Read full judgment →
• Younis son of Abdul Aziz Katohar and others vs The State2024 SHC 1314 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-11
  criminal appealdacoitybenefit of doubtdelayed FIRmashirnamaSection 103 CrPCacquittalevidentiary value
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 397, Section 149, Section 337-A(i), and Section 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity and causing injuries. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the impact of unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the consequences of violating Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the association of independent witnesses. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt, citing material contradictions in witness testimony, an inordinate nine-hour delay in lodging the FIR without explanation, and the failure to associate independent mashirs during the arrest process. Furthermore, the complainant and injured witnesses filed affidavits stating the appellants were not the real culprits. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms that the prosecution must prove its case to the hilt, and any reasonable doubt arising from evidence, procedural lapses, or contradictions must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging an FIR cast doubt on the entire prosecution case?
  • Is the failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality during arrest or recovery a violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Must the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused when material contradictions exist in the prosecution's evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the complainant and injured witnesses testify that the accused were falsely implicated due to a misunderstanding?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasir Yaqoob and another vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary2024 CLC 1108 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-27Read full judgment →
• Yasir vs The state & another2024 PHC 18 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-17
  circumstantial evidenceDNA profilingjudicial confessionrape and murderchild protectioncriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Child Protection Court for the murder and rape of a minor girl. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, including DNA analysis and a judicial confession. The Court held that the prosecution established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, linking the appellant to the crime through forensic DNA matching, the appellant's voluntary judicial confession, and the recovery of incriminating articles. The Court affirmed that DNA evidence is a powerful tool in the search for truth in criminal justice. The key principle laid down is that where circumstantial evidence forms an organic, compact chain connecting the accused to the crime, and is supported by reliable forensic evidence and a voluntary confession, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction for heinous offences, justifying the imposition of the maximum penalty without leniency.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder and rape be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
  • Is a judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 admissible if the accused claims it was obtained through torture?
  • What is the evidentiary value of DNA profiling in establishing the identity of an accused in a criminal trial?
  • Does a delay in recording a judicial confession necessarily render it involuntary or unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasir Manzoor Amin vs Dr. Mehreen Iqbal and others2024 PHC 282, 2025 MLD 479 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-20Read full judgment →
• Yasir Amin Janjua vs Daily News Mart, Rawalpindi2024 PLC 72 · Implementation Tribunal For Newspaper Employees · 2023-10-24
  newspaper employeeunpaid salarygratuityex-parte proceedingsImplementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employeesrecovery of dues
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application filed by a former employee, working as a Marketing Manager and Staff Reporter, against a newspaper establishment for the recovery of unpaid salaries and gratuity. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the employee to arrears of salary and gratuity under the applicable wage standards following the ex-parte proceedings against the respondent establishment. The Tribunal held that since the respondent failed to enter appearance or submit any rebuttal despite repeated notices, and the petitioner's claim was duly supported by an affidavit and statement of account, the application stands accepted. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner is entitled to the claimed amount of Rs. 350,000 comprising unpaid salaries and gratuity. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of any rebuttal or representation by the respondent after being proceeded ex-parte, an employee's substantiated claim regarding dues and emoluments is accepted and ordered for recovery within a stipulated timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Is a newspaper employee entitled to claimed unpaid salaries and gratuity when the respondent establishment is proceeded ex-parte without offering any rebuttal?
  • Can an ex-parte application supported by an affidavit and statement of account be accepted for the recovery of dues against a non-appearing respondent?
  Read full judgment →
• Yaseen Balouch vs The State2024 MLD 703 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-11Read full judgment →
• Yaseen Ahmed Khaki vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 482 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad Khan vs The State & another2024 SCP 251, 2024 SCMR 1738 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-25
  post-arrest bailmurderfirearm expert reportcounter-versionheinous offencescriminal investigationtentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving murder and murderous assault, registered under FIR No. 470/23. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and his brother opened fire on the complainant's family, resulting in two deaths and multiple injuries, with the motive being a dispute over a joint guest room. The petitioner claimed a counter-version, alleging he was attacked while constructing a wall. The investigation revealed that crime empties recovered from the scene matched the Kalashnikov recovered at the petitioner's pointation. The Supreme Court observed that the firearm expert's report provided strong incriminating evidence linking the petitioner to the crime. The Court held that the existence of a counter-version does not automatically entitle an accused to bail when there is sufficient incriminating material on record. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner was prima facie involved in heinous, non-bailable offenses and dismissed the bail petition, emphasizing that the findings were tentative and should not prejudice the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere registration of a counter-version of an occurrence entitle an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Can a positive firearm expert report linking a recovered weapon to crime empties constitute sufficient incriminating material to deny bail in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Yaar Gul Khan vs Returning Officer, PP-138, Sheikhupura and others2024 LHC 52, 2024 MLD 614, 2024 PLJ Lahore 336 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-09Read full judgment →
• Xenia Hamayun Sanik vs The Government of Punjab through Secretary2024 LHC 3730, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 58 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-03
  official residenceallotment policydeputation abroadgovernment servantadministrative lawspecific vs general provisionvacation notice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a government servant, challenged multiple notices directing her to vacate an official residence allotted to her. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, currently posted as a Public Finance Management Expert in a program under the Foreign Commonwealth Development Office, Islamabad, falls under the policy provision governing transfers out of Punjab (limiting retention to one year) or the provision governing deputation abroad (allowing retention for up to three years). The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner’s posting constitutes a deputation abroad under the ABAD Houses Allotment Policy, 2013. The Court emphasized the principle that specific provisions supersede general ones; therefore, clause 14(f) regarding deputation abroad specifically applied to the petitioner's situation, rather than the general clause 14(d)(iii) regarding transfers out of Punjab. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned vacation notices illegal and without lawful authority, affirming that while government residence is not a vested right, employees must be treated fairly and in accordance with the applicable policy.

  Questions settled

  • Does a specific policy provision regarding deputation abroad supersede a general provision regarding transfers out of province for the purpose of retaining official residence?
  • Is an employee posted to a program under the Foreign Commonwealth Development Office, Islamabad, considered to be on deputation abroad under the ABAD Houses Allotment Policy, 2013?
  • Can a government servant claim the right to retain an official residence beyond the period stipulated in the applicable allotment policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Wire Manufacturing Industry Ltd. through Authorized Officer vs Habib2024 CLD 975 · Insurance Appellate Tribunal Punjab · 2024-03-22Read full judgment →
• Wi-Tribe (Pvt.) Ltd. through Head of Legal and Regulatory Affairs vs Pakistan Telecommunication Authority through Chairman2024 CLC 937 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-21Read full judgment →
• Wazir Badshah and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2024 PLD Peshawar 12 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-11Read full judgment →
• Water & Power Development Authority & another vs Kadir Bakhsh &2024 SHC 1316 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Wateen Telecom (Pvt.) Limited through Authorized Officer vs Abdul Sattar2024 PLC 237 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-06
  difference of wagestrans-provincial entityminimum wagesalternative remedyjurisdictioninquiryconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a decision awarding wage differences and compensation to private respondents under the Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015, bypassing the statutory appeal remedy on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, failure to conduct a proper inquiry, and because a co-respondent had already filed an appeal. The core legal question concerned the validity of the impugned decision regarding a trans-provincial entity, the necessity of an inquiry under the Act, and whether the alternative remedy bar applied. The Sindh High Court held that the authority failed to properly address jurisdictional objections and omitted the mandatory inquiry regarding claims made on behalf of numerous workers, particularly when the underlying minimum wage notification was set aside by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the petition was accepted, the impugned decision was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the authority for a fresh decision after determining the issue of jurisdiction first.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a wage authority decision when a co-respondent has filed an appeal and the entire awarded amount is deposited?
  • Is a statutory authority required to conduct a proper inquiry under Section 15 of the Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015, when claims are advanced on behalf of numerous workers?
  • Whether the Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015, applies to trans-provincial entities or if the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, governs them?
  • Does an authority under the Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015, have the duty to address objections regarding its jurisdiction and maintainability before awarding claims?
  Read full judgment →
• Waseem vs The State and another2024 LHC 4648, 2025 YLR 378 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-28
  post-arrest bailsexual abuseminor victimprohibitory clausesodomycriminal law amendmentvictim statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought post-arrest bail for an accused charged with attempting to commit sodomy against a minor. The core legal question concerned whether the allegations, initially registered under sections 376(iii) and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, justified bail, particularly in light of the statutory provisions regarding sexual abuse of minors. The court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the allegations, supported by the victim's statements under sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, established reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court clarified that sections 377A and 377B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, introduced by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 2016, define 'sexual abuse' broadly to protect children, encompassing conduct beyond consummated acts. Consequently, the court emphasized that such offenses against minors are serious, warranting strict judicial scrutiny and the application of the prohibitory clause, thereby precluding the grant of bail in this instance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'sexual abuse' under Section 377A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require the consummation of rape or sodomy?
  • Do offenses involving sexual abuse of minors under Section 377B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the ordinary rules regarding the delay in reporting a crime be applied to child victims of sexual abuse?
  Read full judgment →
• Waseem Hussain Shah vs Sindh Industrial Estate (Site) & others2024 SHC 490 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Waqas Yaqub vs Adeel Yaqub and another2024 LHC 2144 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-07Read full judgment →
• Waqas Shahzad vs Inspector General Police Punjab Lahore and others2024 SCP 75, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 587, 2024 SCMR 605 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-23
  service lawdismissal from servicedepartmental inquiryrevision petitionsuo motulimitation periodservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner, a former Security Constable, was dismissed from service following a departmental inquiry under the Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, which found him guilty of misconduct and negligence. The petitioner challenged the dismissal through a departmental appeal, which was rejected, and subsequently filed a revision petition before the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, which was also dismissed. He then appealed to the Service Tribunal against the revisional order. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether a civil servant has a vested right to file a revision petition under Rule 12 of the Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, or Section 17 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, and whether doing so extends the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Court held that revisional powers under these provisions are suo motu in nature and do not confer a vested right of appeal or revision on the employee. Consequently, filing an unauthorized revision petition does not condone delay or extend the limitation period for approaching the Service Tribunal against the final departmental appeal order. The petition was dismissed and leave was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to file a revision petition under Rule 12 of the Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, or Section 17 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006?
  • Does the filing of an unauthorized departmental revision petition extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Can an aggrieved civil servant bypass the direct remedy of an appeal before the Service Tribunal by waiting for the outcome of a non-statutory or suo motu revision petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqas Awan s/o Abdul Rehman Awan vs Khawaja Naveed Ahmed s/o2024 SC AJK 30 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Waqas Ahmed Langah vs Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human2024 IHC 186 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-27Read full judgment →
• Waqar Ali Awan vs The State/NAB2024 PCr. LJ 2041 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-17
  accountabilitycorruptionmisappropriation of wheatmitigating circumstancesreduction of sentencesentence already undergonenational accountability ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Accountability Court, Sukkur, wherein the appellant, Waqar Ali Awan, was convicted under Sections 9 and 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for corruption and corrupt practices relating to the misappropriation of wheat stock, resulting in a sentence of 14 years rigorous imprisonment and a substantial fine. During the appeal, the appellant's counsel conceded to the prosecution's case on merits and pressed solely for a reduction in sentence, citing mitigating factors including the appellant's advanced age, deteriorating health, and the fact that he had already served over 12 years in custody. The Sindh High Court examined the record, affirmed that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and addressed the sole issue of sentencing. Holding that sentencing is a matter of judicial discretion involving the assessment of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the Court maintained the conviction but exercised its powers under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, while upholding the fine and statutory disqualifications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone based on mitigating circumstances such as age and health?
  • Is the infliction of conviction and sentencing a mechanical exercise or does it require the conscious application of judicial discretion?
  • Can a conviction under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 be maintained while modifying the substantive sentence of imprisonment?
  • How should a court exercise its discretion in determining a fair and adequate sentence commensurate with the gravity of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqar Ahmed & others, Aaqib Ali and others vs The Federation of Pakistan2024 SCP 329, 2024 SCMR 1877, 2024 PLC 338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-02
  regularization of servicewrit jurisdictionArticle 199contractual employeesoutsourcinglabor lawsindustrial relationsdisputed questions of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed constitutional petitions seeking the regularization of services for employees engaged by the Karachi Port Trust (KPT) through an outsourcing contractor. The core legal question was whether these contractual employees could claim regularization in the principal organization via writ jurisdiction, and whether such claims, involving disputed factual issues, were maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, ruling that constitutional jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolving complex factual controversies, such as whether an outsourcing arrangement was a sham or whether employees attained permanent status under labor laws. The Court established that where no statutory rules of service exist, or where disputed facts require evidence, the High Court cannot embark on such inquiries. Instead, the Court emphasized that aggrieved workers must pursue their remedies under applicable labor laws, such as the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, before the appropriate Labour Court or the National Industrial Relations Commission, rather than invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact regarding the regularization of contractual employees?
  • Does a contractual employee have an automatic vested right to regularization in the absence of specific statutory rules of service?
  • Is the writ jurisdiction of the High Court the appropriate forum for an employee to seek redressal for grievances governed by the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Secretary, Ministry of Federal Education & Professional2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 89 · Federal Service Tribunal
  pension eligibilitycontractual serviceregularizationqualifying serviceservice tribunalpensionary benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a former employee of the Prime Minister's Literacy Commission, challenged the denial of pensionary benefits following his retirement. Having served on a contractual basis from 1996 until his regularization in 2013, he retired in 2017. The respondents denied his pension claim on the grounds that he lacked the mandatory ten years of regular service required for eligibility. The core legal question was whether service rendered on a contractual basis could be aggregated with regularized service to satisfy the minimum qualifying period for pension entitlement. Relying on the Civil Service Regulations and Supreme Court precedents, the Federal Service Tribunal held that contractual service cannot be counted toward the minimum qualifying period for pension eligibility. The Tribunal affirmed that while contractual service may be factored into pension calculations once eligibility is established, it cannot be used to bridge the deficiency in the mandatory ten-year regular service requirement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to meet the statutory threshold for pension entitlement.

  Questions settled

  • Can contractual service be aggregated with regular service to meet the minimum ten-year qualifying period for pension eligibility?
  • Does the non-obstante clause in Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations allow for the counting of temporary service to satisfy the minimum regular service requirement for pension?
  • Is an employee who has served less than ten years in a regular capacity entitled to pensionary benefits by including prior contractual service?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Ahad Khan vs Mumtaz Ali Mallah & others2024 SHC 1110 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-24
  transfer of criminal caseSection 526 CrPCthreats to complainantfair trialspeedy trialJudicial Magistrate KhiproDistrict Judge Sanghar
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Transfer Application under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was brought by the complainant seeking the transfer of Criminal Case No. 117/2024 from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Khipro, to any other competent court in Mirpurkhas, Umerkot, Nawabshah, or elsewhere. The complainant alleged that the accused persons had issued direct death threats warning him not to pursue the case or record his evidence at Khipro. The presiding trial magistrate submitted comments stating no objection to the transfer, noting the trial was stalled at the evidence stage. The High Court observed that while case transfers are exceptional remedies intended to serve the ends of justice without curtailing parties' rights, the preservation of human life takes precedence. Holding that judicial propriety required an objective local assessment, the High Court referred the matter to the Sessions Judge/District Judge, Sanghar, to determine the feasibility of transferring the trial to another competent court within District Sanghar after hearing the parties to ensure a safe, smooth, and speedy trial.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a criminal trial be transferred from one court to another under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether allegations of life threats by the accused against a complainant justify referring a case for transfer to secure a fair and speedy trial?
  • Can the High Court direct a District Judge to determine the feasibility of transferring a criminal case between subordinate courts within the same district?
  Read full judgment →
• Wakeel vs The State2024 PCRLJ 592 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-16
  narcotics possessionchain of custodychemical examiner reportweight discrepancycriminal appealacquittalindependent witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the Appellant for the possession of 1025 grams of charas, an offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies in the weight of the recovered narcotics. The Trial Court had convicted the Appellant based on the police testimony and the Chemical Examiner's report. Upon review, the High Court found that the weight of the charas recorded in the FIR and seizure memo differed from the weight reported by the Chemical Examiner, creating a fatal ambiguity regarding the identity of the substance analyzed. Furthermore, the court noted the absence of independent witnesses despite the police having prior information. The court held that such discrepancies and the failure to maintain an unbroken chain of custody render the Chemical Examiner's report unreliable. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, establishing that the prosecution must prove an indisputable chain of custody to secure a conviction in narcotics cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the weight of narcotics recorded at the time of seizure and the weight reported by the Chemical Examiner create reasonable doubt?
  • Is the prosecution required to establish an unbroken chain of custody for narcotic samples to sustain a conviction?
  • Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 completely absolve the police from associating private witnesses in recovery proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Wajid Usman and another vs Qabil Khan and others2024 PCRLJ 1094 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-08-16
  constitutional petitionregistration of FIREx-officio Justice of Peaceunnatural deathpolice inquirysection 22-A Cr.P.C
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, whereby a petition under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was accepted and the police were directed to register a formal FIR regarding an unnatural death. The core legal question was whether an Ex-officio Justice of Peace can mechanically order the registration of an FIR under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without examining the record or inquiry already conducted under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order. The court held that an Ex-officio Justice of Peace must not act mechanically by merely considering the applicant's version, but must apply their mind and examine all facts, circumstances, and available inquiry records before ordering the registration of a criminal case.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Ex-officio Justice of Peace order the registration of an FIR in a mechanical manner under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it mandatory for a Justice of Peace to examine the police inquiry record and apply judicial mind before directing the registration of a criminal case?
  • What is the scope and purpose of an inquiry conducted under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding an unnatural death?
  Read full judgment →
• Wajid Ur Rehman vs Election Commission of Pakistan etc2024 LHC 12, 2024 PLJ Lahore 68, 2024 CLC 885 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-04Read full judgment →
• Wajid Mehmood vs Muhammad Hanif and another2024 IHC 194, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 50 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-11Read full judgment →
• Wajid Ghani vs Wakeel Ghani2024 PHC 252 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-18Read full judgment →
• Wajid Ali vs The Govt. of Punjab & others2024 LHC 1849, 2025 PLJ Lahore 93 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-19Read full judgment →
• Wajahat Hussain Hussaini etc vs Commissioner PESSI etc2024 LHC 2239, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 718 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-16
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitystatutory rulesnon-statutory regulationsvested rightsservice regulationsgraduate quota
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an office order issued by the Governing Body of the Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (PESSI) amending the Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (Revised Service) Regulations, 2008, and seeks directions for the petitioners' appointment as Assistants under a graduate quota. The core legal questions concern the maintainability of a constitutional petition for the enforcement of non-statutory regulations, whether regulations framed by the Governing Body under the Punjab Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 possess statutory force, and whether an amendment to such regulations infringes upon any vested rights. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that regulations framed by the Governing Body under section 80 of the Ordinance—without being framed or approved as rules by the Provincial Government under section 79—are non-statutory in nature, rendering a constitutional petition for their enforcement non-maintainable. The Court laid down the principle that internal service regulations framed by a corporate or statutory body's governing authority, rather than the government itself via statutory rules, lack statutory force, and that employees possess no vested right in unamended service regulations prior to a formal appointment order.

  Questions settled

  • Are service regulations framed by the Governing Body of PESSI under section 80 of the Punjab Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 statutory in nature?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable for the enforcement of non-statutory service regulations?
  • Does the power of the Governing Body to frame service regulations include the power to amend them?
  • Does an unappointed candidate acquire a vested right to challenge an amendment to service regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Wahid Khan and another vs Secretary Mines and Minerals, Khyber2024 CLC 1731 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-19Read full judgment →
• Waheed Younas vs Addl. District Judge & 3 others2024 LHC 3510, 2024 PLD Lahore 608 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-11Read full judgment →
• Waheed Gul Khan, Mumtaz Ali vs Province of Sindh and others2024 SCP 258, 2024 SCMR 1701, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-26
  service lawconstitutional jurisdictioninterview processvested rightjudicial reviewpublic appointmentsubjective evaluation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing constitutional petitions filed by candidates who, despite passing a written examination for positions in the Food Department, Government of Sindh, were not selected following the interview process. The core legal questions were whether qualifying for an interview creates a vested right to appointment and whether the interview process is subject to judicial review under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the petitions were devoid of merit and dismissed them. The Court affirmed that merely passing a written test does not confer a vested right to appointment. Furthermore, the Court held that an interview is a subjective evaluation process; therefore, a court of law cannot substitute its own opinion for that of an Interview Board unless there is clear evidence of mala fides, bias, or significant error apparent on the record. The principle laid down is that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to challenge the subjective assessment of an Interview Board or to enforce appointment based on written test performance alone.

  Questions settled

  • Does passing a written examination for a public post create a vested right to appointment?
  • Can a court of law substitute its opinion for that of an Interview Board in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is the interview process for public employment subject to judicial review in the absence of mala fides or bias?
  Read full judgment →
• Waheed Ashraf vs Federation of Pakistan, etcPTCL 2024 CL. 726 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-19Read full judgment →
• Waheed Ashraf vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue2024 PLJ Islamabad 135 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Waheed Ali Rind Baloch vs R.O PS-76 & Others2024 SHC 64 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-15Read full judgment →