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.

• Waheed Akhtar vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1366 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-17Read full judgment →
• Virgoz Oils & Fats Pte. Limited vs Faisal Exports (Pvt.) Limited2024 SHC 834 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-05Read full judgment →
• Vifor (International) Ag, Vifor (International) Ltd. and Vifor (International)2024 IHC 288 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-31Read full judgment →
• Vice Chancellor Agriculture University, Peshawar, etc. (In all cases) vs Muhammad Shafiq, etc. and others2024 SCP 44, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 323, 2024 SCMR 527 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-17
  regularizationcontractual employmentante-date regularizationinstitutional autonomyvested righteducational institutionsservice lawpolicy matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment addresses the regularization of contractual employees at the University of Agriculture, Peshawar. The respondents, initially hired as Class IV employees on a contract basis, sought regularization and back benefits through the High Court, which directed the University to consider their cases based on the principle of parity with already regularized staff. The Supreme Court identified two primary legal questions: whether contractual employees can be regularized without specific legal or policy backing, and whether regularization can be granted retrospectively (ante-date). The Court held that regularization is a fresh appointment process requiring a statutory basis, policy framework, and objective assessment of merit and financial implications. It ruled that there is no vested right to regularization for contract employees and that Article 25 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegalities or bypass statutory requirements. Furthermore, the Court established that regularization takes effect prospectively from the date of the order. Consequently, the High Court's judgments were set aside, emphasizing judicial deference to the institutional autonomy and policy decisions of educational institutions.

  Read full judgment →
• Uzair Saboor and others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 358 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Pvt Ltd and others vs Muhammad Arif2024 PHC 398 · Peshawar High Court
  gratuitywages definitionworkman statusterritorial jurisdictionrecurring cause of actionpayment of wageslabour revision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Peshawar High Court resolves a batch of labour revision petitions filed by the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan against concurrent findings of the Authority and the Labour Court, which had allowed the retired employees' claims for gratuity under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013. The core legal questions involved whether gratuity falls outside the definition of 'wages' under the Act, whether the respondents qualified as 'workmen', whether the Authority at Haripur possessed territorial jurisdiction, and whether the claims were barred by limitation. The Court held that gratuity payable upon discharge does not exclude retirement gratuity where discharge is undefined and cannot be equated with superannuation retirement, that the Act applies broadly to 'employees' rather than being strictly restricted to workmen, that non-payment of gratuity constitutes a continuing wrong creating a recurring cause of action, and that the Authority possessed proper territorial jurisdiction. The revision petitions were accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether gratuity falls within the definition of wages under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013?
  • Does the exclusion of gratuity payable on discharge under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013 apply to employees who retire upon attaining the age of superannuation?
  • Are the provisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013 restricted solely to 'workmen' or do they apply to all categories of employees?
  • Does the refusal to pay gratuity amount to a continuing wrong creating a recurring cause of action for the purpose of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Usuf Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd vs Muhammad Sabir Chippa and another2024 CLC 1279 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-21Read full judgment →
• Usman Ghani vs Election Commission of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1284 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-22Read full judgment →
• Usman Dar vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior Division2024 YLR 1406 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-27Read full judgment →
• Yasir Kalwar vs Mst. Farzeen & others2024 SHC 982, 2025 PLD Sindh 134 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-24Read full judgment →
• Usman Bajwa vs The State & others2024 SHC 1190 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-31Read full judgment →
• Usama s/o Muhammad Raheem vs The State etc2024 PHC 258, 2025 YLR 721 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-23Read full judgment →
• Usama Ali, Muhammad Aslam vs The State, The State & another2024 LHC 6062, 2025 YLR 427 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-04
  tunnel visioncircumstantial evidencebenefit of the doubtlast-seen evidencemurderpolygraph testDNA matchingcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the triple murder of three youths. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, DNA matching, weapon recovery, and shoe identification, in an unwitnessed crime. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case, heavily criticizing the police investigation for exhibiting 'tunnel vision' and confirmation bias. The court ruled that the circumstantial links were fabricated, the last-seen evidence was unreliable, and the recoveries were planted. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt, and the connected revision petition for sentence enhancement was dismissed, reiterating that a single reasonable doubt is sufficient for acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether last-seen evidence coming after a considerable delay and lacking corroboration can sustain a murder conviction?
  • Does a failure by an expert to conduct a polygraph test due to an alleged confession vitiate the reliance on such proceedings?
  • Can a conviction be recorded solely on the basis of weak circumstantial evidence and doubtful recoveries of weapons and shoes?
  • What is the legal effect of police 'tunnel vision' and confirmation bias on the credibility of a criminal prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• University of Punjab etc. vs Abdul Majeed etc.2023 LHC 510, 2024 MLD 1724 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-02Read full judgment →
• University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir through Registrar, Chehla Campus2024 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 160 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Universal Recycling through authorized Representative vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division_Chairman FBR and 2 others2024 PTD 754 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-18Read full judgment →
• Unity Foods Ltd vs Security & Exchange Commission of Pakistan & another2024 SHC 938, 2025 CLD 86 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-11Read full judgment →
• United Refrigeration Industries Limited & Dawlance (Private) Limited vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal Zone, Large Taxpayer Office, Karachi and others2024 SHC 1006 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Muhammad Amjad Hayat Khan2024 LHC 1632, 2024 PLJ Lahore 572, 2025 PLD Lahore 425, 2025 CLD 635 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-18Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Ghulam Nabi Sheikh2024 CLD 864 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-03Read full judgment →
• Umer Khan and 22 others vs Member-I, Board of Revenue, Khyber2024 YLR 552 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-27Read full judgment →
• Umer Farooq vs The State2024 MLD 1452 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2024-03-27
  post-arrest bailjuvenile offenderidentification paradefurther inquirydelay in trialforensic reportprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Umer Farooq, who was implicated in a case registered under sections 302, 397, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the delayed identification, the arguable evidentiary value of the forensic report regarding the recovered weapon, his status as a juvenile offender, and the prolonged delay in concluding the trial contrary to the court's earlier directions. The Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan accepted the appeal and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, holding that his case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principles laid down include that delayed identification based on mere suspicion of physical features during a night-time occurrence with muffled faces raises a triable issue of identity, that simultaneous receipt of empties and weapon renders forensic reports inconsequential at the bail stage, and that statutory delay in concluding a juvenile trial constitutes sufficient ground for granting bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is not nominated in the FIR and is implicated belatedly based on suspicion of facial features during a night-time incident?
  • Does the simultaneous receipt of crime empties and the alleged weapon at the forensic laboratory render a positive forensic report inconsequential at the bail stage?
  • Whether prolonged delay in concluding the trial of a juvenile offender, despite earlier directions by the appellate court, constitutes a ground for further inquiry and grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Umed Ali alias Umedo Narejo vs The State2024 MLD 546 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-02
  police encounterbenefit of doubtcriminal appealindependent investigationevidentiary lacunaFIR delayacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for offences arising from an alleged police encounter. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite significant evidentiary gaps. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of doubt. The Court established that in cases of police encounters, the standard of proof is higher, and it is imperative that the investigation be conducted by an independent agency rather than the police investigating their own cause. The prosecution's case was found to be unnatural and unreliable due to an unexplained delay in FIR registration, the failure to explain how police identified the accused, the non-production of crucial documentary evidence like the Roznamcha entry, and the failure to send recovered weapon empties for forensic analysis. Furthermore, the Court held that general allegations and the absence of independent witnesses in a daytime incident, where such witnesses were available, render the prosecution's narrative insufficient to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained in a police encounter case where the police act as the investigators of their own cause?
  • Does the failure to send recovered weapon empties for forensic analysis create a fatal gap in the prosecution's case?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to explain a significant delay in the registration of the FIR?
  • Does the failure to produce key documentary evidence like a Roznamcha entry undermine the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Jan and 16 others vs Abdul Jabbar and 29 others2024 PLC (C.S) 79 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-04-19
  status quovacation of injunctionpromotion quotadirect inductionservice matterprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the vacation of a status quo order granted in a writ petition, which had directed parties to maintain status quo regarding several impugned posts of Principal/Vice Principal/Headmaster (BPS-19) advertised by the Federal Public Service Commission for direct recruitment. The core legal question concerned whether the continuation of the status quo was justified where the recruitment process by the Federal Public Service Commission was nearly complete, the respondents lacked the requisite length of service for promotion, and no prima facie case for an injunction was established. The court held that the application should be allowed and the status quo order recalled, finding that the petitioners in the writ petition failed to establish a prima facie case, irreparable loss, or the balance of convenience in their favor. The key principle laid down is that a status quo order granted in service matters may be vacated under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the challengers fail to satisfy the necessary prerequisites of a temporary injunction and the recruitment process by the designated examining body has already reached an advanced stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can a status quo order granted in a constitutional petition be vacated under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether failure to establish a prima facie case warrants the recall of a temporary injunction in service disputes?
  • Are candidates who do not possess the required length of service eligible to claim promotion against higher posts?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Farooq vs The State2024 MLD 1737 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-11-28
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausedelay in trialrule of consistencyheinous offencestatutory delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of delay in conclusion of the trial exceeding four and a half years, despite previous court directions, and on the principle of consistency given that a co-accused had already been enlarged on bail. The court held that an accused cannot be detained in jail indefinitely as a punitive measure merely for facing a charge under the prohibitory clause, especially when the prosecution fails to conclude the trial within the stipulated timeframe. The court established the principle that prolonged incarceration without trial, coupled with the rule of consistency vis-a-vis co-accused, entitles an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be kept in jail for an indefinite period as punishment when facing a charge falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to conclude the trial within the stipulated period directed by the court entitle the accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the rule of consistency applies when a co-accused has already been released on bail by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Farooq vs Sajjad Ahmad Qamar and others2024 SCP 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-30
  election lawnomination papersGeneral Elections 2024candidate eligibilityelection symbolballot papers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to the rejection of nomination papers for the General Elections of 2024 for constituency NA-99 (Faisalabad). The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the High Court's judgments that had upheld the rejection of his nomination papers. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the parties, converted the leave petitions into appeals and allowed them. The Court set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court, thereby declaring that the petitioner's nomination papers are deemed accepted and his name must be included in the final list of candidates for the constituency. Furthermore, the Court mandated that the Election Commission of Pakistan must immediately allocate an election symbol to the candidate and ensure his name and symbol appear on the ballot papers for the scheduled election on 08.02.2024. The decision effectively restores the candidate's eligibility to contest the election, emphasizing the necessity of timely inclusion in the electoral process for the specified constituency.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment rejecting nomination papers and order the inclusion of a candidate in the final list?
  • Is the Election Commission of Pakistan obligated to allocate an election symbol to a candidate whose nomination papers have been accepted by the Supreme Court?
  • Does the acceptance of nomination papers by the Supreme Court require the inclusion of the candidate's name and symbol on the ballot papers for the scheduled election?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Farooq vs Ali Imran Aslam and others2024 SCP 51 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-30
  nomination papersgeneral electionselection symbolcandidate eligibilitysupreme court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal converted into appeals, challenging the judgments of the High Court that had allowed writ petitions against the acceptance of the petitioner's nomination papers. The core legal question concerns the validity of the rejection or challenge to nomination papers for provincial assembly candidacy for the General Elections of 2024. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court, and declared that the nomination papers of the appellant for PP-107 (Faisalabad) are deemed accepted. The Court directed the Election Commission to immediately include his name in the final list of candidates and allocate him an election symbol to ensure the election proceeds as scheduled.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court set aside High Court judgments regarding nomination papers and order the inclusion of a candidate's name on the ballot?
  • Is the Election Commission duty-bound to allocate an election symbol upon the acceptance of nomination papers by the Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Farooq and another vs Muhammad Usman and 7 others2024 PLD Balochistan 147 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-04-17Read full judgment →
• Umar Daraz alias Muhammad Umar vs Mst. Durdana etc2024 PHC 364 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-14Read full judgment →
• Umar Aslam Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan, etc2024 SCP 40, 2024 SCMR 553 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-26
  nomination papersproclaimed offenderelection disqualificationelectoral processprotective bailjudicial restraint
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that rejected the petitioner's nomination papers for a National Assembly seat (NA-87) on the grounds that he was a proclaimed offender. The core legal question was whether a proclaimed offender is disqualified from contesting elections under the Constitution or the Elections Act, 2017. The Supreme Court observed that neither the Constitution nor the Elections Act provides for such disqualification. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had obtained protective bail, effectively nullifying his status as a proclaimed offender. The Court held that courts cannot create additional disqualifications not prescribed by law. It further clarified that Article 62(1) of the Constitution is not self-executory and does not automatically disqualify a candidate based on such status. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the Election Commission of Pakistan to facilitate the petitioner's participation in the electoral process, establishing the principle that disqualification must be explicitly grounded in statutory law.

  Questions settled

  • Is a proclaimed offender disqualified from contesting elections under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 or the Elections Act, 2017?
  • Can courts create additional grounds for election disqualification not provided by statute?
  • Does the status of being a proclaimed offender automatically trigger disqualification under Article 62(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Umair Wasi Chaudhary vs The Election Commision of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 52, 2024 CLC 1265 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-05Read full judgment →
• Umair Tariq Bijrani vs The State & Ors2024 SHC 198 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ulfat Rasool, The State vs The State, Ulfat Rasool2024 LHC 453, 2024 PCRLJ 1310, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 453 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-12
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtmurder referencelast seen evidencecriminal appealmotiveforensic evidencechance witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution’s case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically last-seen testimony and an alleged motive involving illicit relations. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence formed a complete, unbroken chain sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to substantiate its case. The Court found the last-seen witnesses to be unreliable "chance witnesses" and determined that the motive was not established, noting that the alleged photographic evidence lacked forensic verification. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon and blood-stained clothes was deemed unreliable due to the significant delay and lack of DNA matching. Emphasizing that any missing link in a circumstantial chain necessitates acquittal, the Court ruled that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, the appeal was accepted, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Is last-seen evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of other corroborating evidence?
  • Does the failure to conduct a forensic examination of digital evidence render it unreliable in a criminal trial?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's case relies on circumstantial evidence with missing links?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Ufaid Gul vs Mst. Farkhanda Ayub Khan and others2024 SCP 345, 2025 SCMR 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-23
  specific performanceagreement to sellpecuniary jurisdictioncontributory negligencediscretionary reliefactus curiae neminem gravabitappellate forum
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that set aside a trial court's decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The core legal questions were whether a decree for specific performance is maintainable against a property owner when the agreement was executed by a third party lacking title, and whether procedural delays resulting from filing an appeal in a forum lacking pecuniary jurisdiction can be condoned. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that specific performance is a discretionary relief which cannot be granted against an owner when the agreement was entered into with a person having no legal concern with the suit property. The Court further ruled that where both a party and the court contribute to procedural delays regarding jurisdictional defects, the doctrine of contributory negligence applies. Affirming the principle that "an act of the court shall prejudice no one," the Court held that a litigant should not be deprived of legal rights due to procedural lapses induced by the court’s own failure to identify jurisdictional limits promptly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a decree for specific performance be granted against a property owner when the agreement to sell was executed by a third party having no title to the property?
  • Does the doctrine of contributory negligence apply when both a litigant and the court contribute to procedural delays regarding jurisdictional defects?
  • Is the grant of a decree for specific performance a discretionary relief that can be refused even if the agreement is proven?
  • Does the principle that an act of the court shall prejudice no one apply to procedural delays caused by filing an appeal in a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ubedullah S/O Gul Muhammad vs The State2024 SHC 720 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-03
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayjuvenile offendernarcotics traffickingCNS Actpassenger in vehicleprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with Section 6(5) of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018, arising out of an F.I.R. registered under Sections 6/9(c) and 14/15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The applicant sought bail primarily on statutory delay grounds, having been incarcerated for over two years without conclusion of trial, and on the ground of being a juvenile offender aged approximately 14 years at the time of arrest. The core legal questions involved the applicability of the statutory delay proviso to offences carrying the death penalty under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, and the entitlement of a juvenile and passenger in a vehicle containing narcotics to post-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court allowed the bail application, holding that the applicant was entitled to bail as a matter of right due to unconscionable statutory delay not attributable to him, his status as a juvenile, and his mere passenger status in the vehicle. The court laid down the principle that statutory delay rights under Section 497 Cr.P.C. apply to narcotics cases notwithstanding the bar under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, and that minors and vulnerable persons are entitled to favourable consideration for bail even in prohibitory clause offences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted on the ground of statutory delay under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 despite the bar contained in Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is an accused who is a juvenile and has been detained for a prolonged period without conclusion of trial entitled to post-arrest bail as of right?
  • Does a passenger sitting in a vehicle from which narcotics are recovered incur a prima facie liability sufficient to deny bail without proof of active connection?
  • What constitutes a shocking and unconscionable delay in a trial sufficient to warrant the concession of bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ubaidullah vs Haji Atta Mihammad Bangulzai & others2024 SCP 402, 2025 SCMR 422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-20
  election petitionmandatory requirementoriginal affidavitssummary rejectionelection tribunalre-pollingtechnical lapse
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Election Tribunal-1 Baluchistan, Quetta, which allowed an election petition and ordered re-polling in sixteen disputed polling stations. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an election petition is maintainable when it is filed and supported by photocopies of witness affidavits rather than the original affidavits verified on oath as mandated by statute. The Supreme Court held that the requirement to furnish original statements of witnesses on affidavits along with the election petition is mandatory under Section 144(2)(a) of the Election Act, 2017, and non-compliance entails summary rejection of the petition under Section 145. The Court established that filing photocopies or unverified notarized copies instead of original affidavits is a fatal defect that cannot be dismissed as a mere technical lapse, rendering the election petition non-maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the requirement to furnish original witness affidavits with an election petition under the Election Act, 2017 is mandatory?
  • Does the failure to file original affidavits, and relying instead on photocopies, render an election petition liable to summary rejection?
  • Can the non-submission of original affidavits verified on oath be condoned as a mere technical lapse in election proceedings?
  • What are the legal consequences under the Election Act, 2017 for non-compliance with the procedural mandates governing the filing of election petitions?
  Read full judgment →
• Ubaidullah Qazi vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 SHC 906 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-04
  civil servicemutual transferabsorptionrepatriationsurplus civil servantservice lawwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, sought a writ to enforce Supreme Court judgments regarding the repatriation of a respondent civil servant from the Federal Finance Division to his parent department, the Appellate Tribunal Local Councils (ATLC), Government of Sindh. The parties had previously engaged in a mutual transfer arrangement. The core legal question was whether the absorption of the respondent into the Federal Finance Division was legally permissible, given the Supreme Court's established jurisprudence against unauthorized absorption of civil servants. The Court held that the purported absorption of the respondent was invalid, as it did not comply with Section 11A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which only permits absorption for civil servants rendered surplus due to reorganization or abolition of posts. The Court emphasized that absorption contrary to statutory provisions and Supreme Court precedents is illegal. Consequently, the Court directed the Finance Division to repatriate the respondent to his parent department and allowed the petitioner to rejoin the Finance Division, rejecting the argument that such unauthorized absorptions constitute past and closed transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant be absorbed into a new department based on a mutual transfer arrangement?
  • Does Section 11A of the Civil Servants Act 1973 permit the absorption of a civil servant who is not surplus?
  • Is an absorption of a civil servant that violates established Supreme Court precedents considered a past and closed transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ubaid Khan and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2024 PLC (C.S.) 1378 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-24
  out of turn promotionaccelerated promotionpolice force incentivescadet instructorsPolice Rules 1934Validation of Standing Order Act 2005Police Policy Board
  Summary & questions settled

  Peshawar High Court heard multiple connected writ petitions challenging departmental orders and minutes of the 56th Police Policy Board directing the implementation of Supreme Court judgments (including 2013 SCMR 1752 and 2017 SCMR 206) regarding out-of-turn promotions across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The petitioners asserted that their accelerated positions were earned through merit, instructional service, and academic excellence under Standing Order No. 11 of 1987, Standing Order No. 7 of 2003, Rule 13.6(1) of the Police Rules 1934, and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Validation of Standing Order Act 2005, rather than discretionary out-of-turn promotions for gallantry granted under civil servant statutes of Sindh and Punjab. The High Court set aside the impugned orders, holding that the respondents acted superficially without distinguishing gallantry-based individual promotions from structured, merit-based instructional incentives established by provincial law. The Court referred the matter to the Provincial Government through the Chief Secretary to clarify its policy stance and prohibited any adverse action against the petitioners pending policy streamlining.

  Questions settled

  • Can accelerated positions granted under structured merit criteria and validated statutory standing orders be automatically equated with illegal out-of-turn promotions granted for gallantry under civil servant laws?
  • Whether departmental authorities may mechanically apply Supreme Court judgments declaring out-of-turn promotions unconstitutional without examining the underlying legal frameworks and circumstances of incentives granted under provincial police rules?
  • Can adverse administrative actions be taken to revert civil servants from accelerated positions earned under statutory incentive policies before the competent provincial government formally decides on whether to amend or withdraw those policies?
  Read full judgment →
• Tufail Muhammad vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through the chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others2024 PHC 314, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 459 · Peshawar High Court
  deputationabsorptionProvincial Management Servicevested rightrepatriationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking to declare the refusal to absorb the petitioner's services in the Provincial Management Service (PMS) as illegal and to direct his absorption. The core legal question was whether an employee of a Federal Autonomous Body serving on deputation in the Provincial Government has a vested right to absorption or indefinite deputation in the provincial service. The Peshawar High Court held that a deputationist has no vested right to remain on deputation or to be absorbed into the borrowing department, and that rules governing the Provincial Management Service do not permit the absorption of employees from Federal Autonomous Bodies. The court laid down the principle that appointment by absorption of deputationists outside their cadre is impermissible, and a deputationist can be repatriated to their parent department at any time by the competent authority without assigning reasons.

  Questions settled

  • Does a deputationist have a vested right to remain on deputation for a stipulated period or to be absorbed in the borrowing department?
  • Can employees of Federal Autonomous Bodies be absorbed into the Provincial Management Service under the Provincial Management Service Rules, 2007?
  • Is the competent authority required to assign reasons for the repatriation of a deputationist to their parent department?
  Read full judgment →
• Tufail Ahmed Soomro vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1374 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-19
  constitutional petitionabsorptionrepatriationsurplus poolcivil servantprivatization
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a former supervisor at Pak-Saudi Fertilizers, whose service was transferred and absorbed into the Sindh Local Government Board, seeking adjustment in a government department and payment of salary in Grade-19 pursuant to Supreme Court judgments. The core legal question was whether a non-civil servant whose privatized parent department ceased to exist could claim benefits, surplus pool placement, or adjustment under Section 11-A of the Civil Servants Act 1973 or Supreme Court repatriation directives. The Sindh High Court held that non-civil servants governed by separate contracts do not fall under the category of individuals covered by Section 11-A of the Civil Servants Act 1973 and cannot be accommodated via surplus pools meant for civil servants. The court laid down the principle that while Supreme Court judgments in rem apply broadly, statutory mechanisms for surplus absorption like Section 11-A are strictly restricted to civil servants and do not extend to employees of privatized corporate entities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a non-civil servant from a privatized entity can be accommodated in a surplus pool under Section 11-A of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Does Section 11-A of the Civil Servants Act 1973 apply to employees whose terms and conditions are governed by separate employment contracts rather than civil service laws?
  • How are employees affected by the nullification of illegal absorptions and the privatization of their parent organizations to be treated under Supreme Court precedents?
  Read full judgment →
• Trustees of Port of Karachi & others vs Muhammad Zahir Shah & others2024 SHC 828, 2024 CLC 1862 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-30Read full judgment →
• Tranzum Courier Service (TCS) Private Limited & another vs Samreen2024 LHC 3692, 2024 CLC 1856 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-20Read full judgment →
• Transparency International Pakistan vs Noor Muhammad Khan2024 PHC 134 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-08Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan vs Sadan General Trading LLC & another2024 SHC 1354, 2025 CLC 525 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-18Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan vs Mv Han Zhong Men through Master_Chief Officer and 3 others2024 PLD Sindh 174 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-05Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Punjab Trading Agency2024 SHC 408 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-09Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd vs Commissioner Inland2024 SHC 908, 2024 PTD 1571 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-05Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited vs The State2024 SHC 926 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-02
  constitutional petitionindustrial relationsworkman definitionvoluntary retirement schemepensionary benefitsmerger of corporationsNIRC orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution Petition was filed by the Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited impugning the concurrent decisions of the Single Member and Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission, Karachi, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the order granting pensionary and regular service benefits to Respondent No. 1. The core legal questions involved whether an employee who opted for a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) but whose services were retained continuously through corporate mergers is entitled to past service regularization and pensionary benefits, and whether a person holding the designation of Assistant Manager falls within the definition of a 'workman' under labor laws. The Sindh High Court held that the concurrent findings of the NIRC were passed within lawful authority and jurisdiction, that appraisal of evidence cannot be re-opened in writ jurisdiction absent perversity or excess of jurisdiction, and that the nature of duties—not mere job designation—determines whether an employee is a workman. The Court laid down that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked as a substitute for an appeal where no jurisdictional defect exists, and that an employee's status as a workman is governed by the actual manual or operational nature of their duties rather than their formal title.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised as a substitute for an appeal against orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  • Does an employee holding the designation of an Assistant Manager fall within the definition of a workman under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Whether the status of an employee as a workman is determined by their job designation or by the actual nature of their duties and functions?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact rendered by the National Industrial Relations Commission open to interference under Article 199 of the Constitution in the absence of perversity or jurisdictional error?
  Read full judgment →
• Trade Smart Securities (Private) Limited vs Securities & Exchange2024 SHC 1334, 2025 PLD Sindh 151, 2025 CLD 620 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-13Read full judgment →
• TPL Life Trakker Limited vs Director/Head of Department, Adjudication2024 CLD 773 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2024-03-26Read full judgment →
• Touqeer Ali Kalwar and another vs The State2024 YLR 126 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-26
  capital punishmentright to fair trialstate counselcross-examinationappeal against acquittalremandbenefit of doubtmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, acquittal appeal, and confirmation reference arose from a judgment passed by the I-Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC), Ghotki, convicting the appellant Tauqeer under sections 302(b) and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death, while acquitting the co-accused. The primary legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the appellant was denied a fair trial and the right to effective legal representation when his state-appointed counsel failed to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and merely adopted the co-accused's questions, and whether the acquittal of the other co-accused warranted interference. The court held that the trial judge failed in his statutory duty under Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 to ascertain the truth when the defense counsel was ineffective, resulting in a miscarriage of justice with respect to the appellant. However, the acquittal of the co-accused was maintained as they enjoyed a double presumption of innocence and were implicated solely on weak suspicion and hearsay. The court set aside the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, answered the confirmation reference in the negative, dismissed the acquittal appeal, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a de novo opportunity of cross-examination and re-decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of a state-appointed counsel to cross-examine prosecution witnesses constitutes a denial of a fair trial requiring a remand of the case?
  • What is the scope of a trial judge's power under Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 to question witnesses when defense counsel fails to adequately represent the accused?
  • Can an order of acquittal be interfered with when the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence and the prosecution relies on mere suspicion and hearsay?
  • Is an accused who has been convicted and sentenced to death entitled to be released on bail upon the remand of his case for retrial or fresh cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• The State/ANF vs Muhammad Javeed2024 SHC 1322 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-05
  re-examination of witnessSection 540 CrPCevidentiary lacunadiscretionary power of courtcriminal trial procedureAnti-Narcotics Force
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the order of the Special Court-I (CNS), Karachi, which dismissed the prosecution's application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the re-examination of a prosecution witness. The prosecution sought to recall the witness to testify regarding the handing over of a sample parcel to a parcel witness, claiming this was an inadvertent omission during the initial examination. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the re-examination of a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to rectify an alleged evidentiary lacuna. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court's decision was justified as the witness had already been fully examined and cross-examined. The Court affirmed that while Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grants courts broad powers to summon or re-examine witnesses to ensure a just decision, this discretionary power cannot be utilized merely to fill evidentiary lacunas or permit a party to improve its case after the conclusion of testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Can Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked by the prosecution to fill evidentiary lacunas?
  • Is a trial court's refusal to recall a witness for re-examination under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to interference if the witness has already been cross-examined?
  • What is the scope of the court's discretion under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the re-examination of witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• The State, Zeeshan Ali vs Zeeshan Ali, The State, etc,2024 LHC 5065, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 15 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-06
  dying declarationmurder referencequantum of sentencemitigating circumstancesmedical evidenceforensic matchhostile witnesscapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of death awarded to the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing the qatl-i-amd of his sister-in-law, along with a connected murder reference. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the victim's dying declaration, corroboration by medical and forensic evidence, and the quantum of sentence. The Lahore High Court held that the dying declaration made by the deceased soon after the occurrence, supported by medical evidence and a positive report from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency regarding the weapon of offense, proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a shadow of doubt. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court altered the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the conviction and the compensation awarded under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that a trustworthy and confidence-inspiring dying declaration, when corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction, and mitigating circumstances may warrant the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying declaration recorded by an injured person who is conscious and well-oriented can form the sole basis of a conviction when corroborated by medical and forensic evidence?
  • Does the hostility of an eyewitness due to familial ties render the entire prosecution case untrustworthy?
  • Under what circumstances can a death sentence for qatl-i-amd be altered to imprisonment for life?
  • Is the positive matching of a recovered weapon with crime empties by the forensic science agency considered reliable corroborative evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• The State, Riaz Hussain vs Riaz Hussain, The State2024 LHC 6239 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-05
  benefit of the doubtchance witnessesocular accountmurder referencecriminal appealappreciation of evidenceabscondencerecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the conviction of Riaz Hussain for the murder of Sajjad Hussain, resulting in a death sentence under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on ocular testimony from 'chance witnesses' and alleged recovery of a weapon. The Lahore High Court found the prosecution's case riddled with fatal flaws: the eyewitnesses failed to justify their presence at the scene, their testimony contradicted the investigating officer's findings, and the medical evidence regarding the time of death and weapon type conflicted with the ocular account. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon violated section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the motive remained unproven. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant by extending him the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right, not concession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of abscondence when the substantive ocular evidence is found unreliable?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a search and recovery violate the mandatory provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the evidentiary value of motive and recovery when the primary ocular account of an incident is disbelieved?
  • Does a delay in conducting a post-mortem examination, without justification, cast doubt on the prosecution's narrative regarding the time of death?
  Read full judgment →
• The State, Qaisar Abbas vs Qaisar Abbas, The State etc2024 LHC 4230, 2025 PCRLJ 311, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 270 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-02
  murder trialdying declarationbenefit of doubtmedical evidenceplace of occurrencemotivecapital sentenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, recorded by the trial court in a murder case. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the alleged dying declaration, the credibility of ocular testimony, the proof of motive, and the establishment of the place of occurrence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the medical evidence contradicted the dying declaration regarding the injured person's fitness to make a statement, the eyewitnesses made irreconcilable contradictions and were not proved to be present, the motive remained unproven, and the weapon recovery lacked corroborative forensic matching. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying declaration can be relied upon when medical evidence shows the injured person was semi-conscious and unfit to make a statement?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the actual place of occurrence and eyewitness testimonies contain irreconcilable contradictions?
  • Is a weapon recovery considered incriminating when there is no forensic report matching it with crime empties from the spot?
  Read full judgment →
• The State, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Arshad vs Muhammad Iqbal, The State, etc, Mukhtar Ahmed, etc2024 LHC 4246, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 301 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• The State, Khawaja Muhammad Tayyab vs Khawaja Muhammad Tayyab, The State etc2024 LHC 5059, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 10, 2025 MLD 537 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-06
  Qatl-i-Amddeath sentencemurder referenceeyewitness credibilitychance witnessbenefit of doubtunwitnessed occurrence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for committing Qatl-i-Amd under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot the deceased at night following an altercation regarding the teasing of the deceased's daughter. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found significant contradictions regarding the time and place where the complainant's statement was recorded, casting doubt on the promptness of the FIR. The court observed that the eyewitnesses, who claimed to be standing in the street at midnight, failed to provide a plausible reason for their presence, and the chance witness failed to justify his presence at the scene. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was unsupported by the witnesses, and the inquest report did not record the presence of the eyewitnesses. Applying the principle of benefit of doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained if there are material contradictions regarding the time and place of recording the initial statement for the FIR?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a chance witness who fails to provide a plausible explanation for their presence at the crime scene at an unusual hour?
  • Does the absence of eyewitness names in the inquest report and recovery memos support the inference of an unwitnessed occurrence?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• The State, Irfan Haider vs Irfan Haider, The State etc2024 LHC 4083, 2025 PCRLJ 605, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 135 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-04
  jail appealmurder referencebenefit of doubtante-timed FIRpostmortem delayinquest report omissionsocular and medical conflictadverse presumptionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal and murder reference arise out of the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein he was sentenced to death for murder. The prosecution alleged that the appellant fired a rifle burst killing the deceased during a dispute over land. Upon evaluating the evidence, the High Court observed an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the postmortem examination, indicating that the FIR was ante-timed after deliberations. The eyewitness accounts contained unnatural conduct, material omissions, and dishonest improvements, while the inquest report lacked essential signatures and details, proving the witnesses were not present at the spot. Furthermore, metallic foreign bodies recovered from the deceased were not sent for forensic comparison with the recovered rifle, attracting an adverse presumption against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Finding the prosecution's case riddled with reasonable doubts, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR and conducting a postmortem examination create a inference that the FIR was ante-timed?
  • Can an accused be convicted on the testimony of eyewitnesses whose conduct is unnatural and who make dishonest improvements?
  • What is the effect of failing to send recovered metallic foreign bodies for ballistic comparison with the seized weapon of offense under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• The State, Imtiaz Ullah vs Imtiaz Ullah, The State2024 LHC 1053, 2024 PCRLJ 1467 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-11
  Qatl-i-Amdmurder referencedeath sentence commutationocular evidencefirearm injuriescriminal appealmitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a trial court judgment convicting the appellant for the murder of the deceased and attempting to murder the complainant. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency of the ocular evidence and the appropriateness of the death sentence given the circumstances. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent and trustworthy ocular testimony from the injured complainant and another eyewitness, despite the rejection of the alleged motive and the negative forensic report regarding the recovered weapon. The Court affirmed the conviction under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. However, citing mitigating factors—specifically the lack of repetition of fire, the disbelieved motive, and the inconsequential nature of the forensic evidence—the Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The principle laid down is that while a conviction may be sustained on ocular evidence alone, the absence of a proven motive and the presence of mitigating circumstances regarding the nature of the attack warrant the commutation of a capital sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a negative forensic report regarding crime empties necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be maintained even if the alleged motive is disbelieved by the court?
  • What factors constitute mitigating circumstances sufficient to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment in a murder case?
  • Is the testimony of an injured witness sufficient to establish the identity of the accused in a night-time occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• The State, Gulraiz Shehzad vs The State, Gulraiz Shehzad2024 LHC 3330, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1240, 2025 PCRLJ 508 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-24
  Qatl-e-Amdmitigating circumstancesdeath sentence conversionocular evidencecriminal appealSection 302 PPCbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court for the offence of Qatl-e-Amd. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether the capital punishment was warranted. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant murdered his brother by inflicting a fatal knife wound, supported by consistent ocular testimony and corroborating medical evidence. The court rejected the appellant's unproven alibi and defense. However, the court found mitigating circumstances, specifically the investigating officer's failure to send the weapon for forensic analysis to confirm bloodstaining and the unexplained immediate motive for the crime. Applying the principle that even slight mitigation justifies a lesser sentence, the court upheld the conviction but converted the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The judgment reaffirms that while ocular evidence may sustain a conviction, procedural lapses and lack of clear motive can serve as extenuating factors for sentencing, necessitating the imposition of the lesser penalty of life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an investigating officer to send a weapon for forensic analysis constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing in a murder case?
  • Can a statement made by an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be treated as evidence?
  • Is the death sentence mandatory if the prosecution proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
  • What is the effect of an accused failing to produce evidence in support of an alibi during a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• The State, Ghulam Abbas alias Agha, Ghulam Raza vs Ghulam Abbas alias2024 LHC 369, 2024 YLR 2222 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-30
  murderchance witnessdying declarationmedical contradictionbenefit of the doubtweapon recoverycriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against conviction, a criminal revision for enhancement of sentence, and a murder reference for confirmation of death sentence arising from a triple murder case. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance witnesses, the evidentiary value of a dying declaration recorded in the form of a police statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without following the prescribed rules, and the corroborative value of medical and recovery evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the ocular testimony came from doubtful chance witnesses whose presence was not proved, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account, the dying declaration was legally inadmissible as such, and the recovery of the weapon was inconsequential. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant by giving him the benefit of the doubt, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the revision petition as infructuous, laying down principles regarding the strict evidentiary requirements for dying declarations and the assessment of chance witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statement of an injured person recorded by an investigating officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without complying with the statutory rules for recording dying declarations can be treated as a valid dying declaration?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene is doubtful and uncorroborated?
  • What is the evidentiary value of medical evidence when it contradicts the ocular account regarding the seat and nature of injuries?
  • Does the recovery of an alleged weapon of offence from an accessible open place provide sufficient corroboration to sustain a capital conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• The State, Ghaffar Abbas alias Ghaffar Ahmed etc. vs Ghaffar Abbas alias2024 LHC 1060, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 791, 2024 YLR 2123 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-13
  criminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubtinquest reportchance witnesscapital punishmentacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences imposed by the trial court upon Ghaffar Abbas and Muhammad Suleman for the murder of Miran Baksh under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of the eye-witness accounts and the integrity of the initial investigation. The Lahore High Court found that the inquest report, prepared under the Police Rules 1934, failed to mention the complainant or the alleged eye-witnesses, indicating that the FIR was likely a result of post-occurrence deliberation. Furthermore, the court identified the eye-witnesses as "chance witnesses" who failed to establish their presence at the crime scene. Given the negative forensic reports regarding weapon recovery and the lack of credible evidence, the court held that serious doubt existed regarding the appellants' participation. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the Murder Reference in the negative, affirming that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of eye-witness names in an inquest report create a reasonable doubt regarding the authenticity of the FIR?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's eye-witnesses are classified as chance witnesses who failed to prove their presence at the crime scene?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in the mind of the court?
  • Does the recovery of weapons on the pointing out of an accused carry evidentiary value when the forensic report is negative?
  Read full judgment →
• The State, Babar alias Jani vs The State, Babar alias Jani2024 LHC 3592, 2025 PCRLJ 22, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 156 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-15
  murder convictionbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidence contradictionsafe custody of case propertycriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Faisal Masih. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the evidence presented. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions. Specifically, the court found the FIR was delayed and deliberated, the ocular testimony was unreliable due to inconsistencies between the medical evidence, which showed injuries on the back, and the eyewitness account of a front-facing attack, and the motive remained unproven. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was compromised by a failure to establish safe custody or link evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and where evidence is doubtful, the benefit must accrue to the accused as a matter of right, not grace, ensuring that no innocent person is convicted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular testimony render eyewitness accounts unreliable?
  • Is the failure to produce the Malkhana register sufficient to create doubt regarding the recovery of a weapon?
  • Can abscondance serve as conclusive proof of guilt in the absence of other incriminating evidence?
  • Does a delay in the registration of an FIR, when unexplained, undermine the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• The State, Asjad Mehmood vs Asjad Mehmood, The State2023 LHC 1385, 2024 YLR 1892 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-15
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtconflicting medical evidencedelayed FIRabsconsionocular testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Asjad Mehmood, recorded by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Babra Bibi in a state case arising from FIR No. 563/2009. The core legal questions involve the credibility of ocular testimony, the corroborative value of medical evidence and alleged weapon recovery, the impact of delayed post-mortem examinations and FIR registration, and the evidentiary weight of absconsion. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to severe contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, delayed post-mortem suggesting fabrication and consultation, withheld material witnesses, and unreliable motive. The Court laid down the principle that absconsion alone cannot form the basis of a conviction when the substantive ocular account has been disbelieved, and that the benefit of every reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to the acquittal of the appellant and the rejection of the murder reference.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of the accused's absconsion when the substantive ocular account has been disbelieved?
  • Whether a significant, unexplained delay in conducting a post-mortem examination creates a doubt regarding the timing and fabrication of the First Information Report?
  • What is the legal effect of a severe conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence on the prosecution's case?
  • Does the withholding of a material eyewitness by the prosecution warrant an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• The State, Ali Hassan alias Achoo vs Ali Hassan alias Achoo, The State2024 LHC 3821 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-07
  qatl-i-amdchild witnessocular evidencedeath sentence confirmationforensic corroborationinterested witnessmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a trial court judgment convicting the appellant for the murder of two individuals and causing injuries to a child. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular evidence from related witnesses, the credibility of a child witness, the impact of delayed recording of statements, and the effect of acquitting co-accused on the prosecution's case against the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent, confidence-inspiring ocular testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and forensic reports linking the recovered weapon to the crime. The Court affirmed the convictions and death sentences, finding no mitigating circumstances. Key principles laid down include: that a child witness, if found intelligent and capable of understanding questions, is a competent and credible witness; that minor discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence do not negate direct testimony; and that the acquittal of co-accused does not automatically discredit evidence against a principal offender when the roles are distinct.

  Questions settled

  • Is a child witness competent to testify if the court is satisfied they can understand questions and provide rational answers?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused automatically discredit the prosecution's evidence against a principal offender?
  • Can minor discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence be disregarded if the ocular account is otherwise trustworthy?
  • Does a delay in recording a witness statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 necessarily render the witness unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• The State, Adil Zaib vs Adil Zaib, The State2024 LHC 1300, 2024 MLD 1278 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-27
  Qatl-i-Amddeath sentence confirmationmurder referenceocular evidenceforensic DNA evidenceappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Adil Zaib, for the Qatl-i-Amd of a 13-year-old student, Barira Zahid, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant, an Islamic teacher, was apprehended red-handed at the scene with a weapon following the brutal murder of the victim in her tutor's house. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the ocular evidence, medical reports, and forensic DNA analysis. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction, finding the testimony of the eyewitnesses—the victim's father and tutor—to be consistent, credible, and corroborated by the medical evidence showing 22 sharp-edged injuries. The Court held that the appellant, having abused his position of trust to commit a callous murder, was entitled to no leniency. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, confirmed the death sentence, and answered the murder reference in the affirmative, maintaining the trial court's original judgment in its entirety.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses can be relied upon if they are cross-examined after a significant lapse of time?
  • Does the presence of minor discrepancies in prosecution witness statements invalidate the entire case?
  • Is a death sentence justified where the accused committed a murder while abusing a position of trust?
  • Can a trial court declare a witness incompetent to testify based on tender age under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• The State, Abid Ali, etc, Haji Akbar Ali vs Abid Ali, The State etc, The State, etc2024 LHC 5924, 2025 PCRLJ 383, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 227 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-20
  murder trialbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRsafe custody of weaponocular and medical contradictionchance witnessacquittal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals and a murder reference arising from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder under sections 302, 201, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions centered on whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the credibility of ocular and medical evidence, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, and the safe custody of recovered weapons. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the appellants due to glaring contradictions, delayed reporting creating room for afterthought, doubtful presence of eyewitnesses, and failure to prove safe custody of the weapon of offense. The court laid down the principle that multiple cumulative discrepancies and a failure to establish safe custody of crime weapons shatter the prosecution's case, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the murder reference answered in the negative, and the connected appeals and revisions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR cast doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case when the medical evidence contradicts the ocular account regarding the duration between injury and death?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody of a recovered weapon to rely upon a positive forensic report?
  • Does the existence of prior deep-seated enmity between parties operate as a double-edged weapon affecting both motive and potential false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Zahid Mehmood Goraya, Advocate.2024 LHC 1450, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 762, 2024 PCRLJ 1548 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-08
  contempt of courtadvocate misconductcriminal contemptwilful contemptcontempt proceedingsbar and bench relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves contempt proceedings initiated against an advocate, Zahid Mehmood Goraya, pursuant to a reference received from a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court under sections 3 and 11 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question concerned whether the respondent advocate committed willful and deliberate judicial and criminal contempt by shouting inside the courtroom, leveling baseless allegations against the bench, inciting fellow lawyers, refusing to comply with court directives, and recording a video of the incident to make it viral on social media. The Lahore High Court held that the charges were proved beyond a shadow of doubt based on oral and documentary evidence, noting that the respondent was a repeat offender who had previously tendered an unconditional apology in similar proceedings. Consequently, the court convicted the respondent under section 5 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, sentencing him to six months simple imprisonment with a fine. The key principle laid down is that acts undermining the dignity and authority of the court, particularly by officers of the court who repeat such misconduct, constitute willful contempt warranting exemplary punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether shouting in the courtroom and leveling baseless allegations against a judge constitutes willful contempt of court?
  • Can an advocate be convicted for contempt of court under section 5 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 upon proof of disorderly and contemptuous conduct?
  • Does a previous history of contempt proceedings and breach of an undertaking influence the quantum of sentence in subsequent contempt cases?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Umer Draz and others2024 LHC 714, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 562, 2024 YLR 1588 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-20
  murder referencecriminal appealbenefit of the doubtcross-version caseacquittalreappraisal of evidencefirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, along with a connected murder reference, criminal petition for special leave to appeal against acquittal, and criminal revision for enhancement of compensation, arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants under sections 302(b), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a cross-version murder case. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given that both parties sustained injuries and casualties in the same occurrence, and the trial court had already disbelieved the eye-witnesses and acquitted several co-accused with identical roles. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its version beyond shadow of doubt, noting that the ocular account was inconsistent with medical and forensic evidence and that the same discredited testimony could not be used selectively to convict the appellants while acquitting co-accused. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and death sentences, answered the murder reference in the negative, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the complainant's petition against acquittal. The key principle laid down is that heinousness of an offense is irrelevant to the appraisal of evidence, and where the prosecution fails to establish its case, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court maintain the conviction of appellants based on eyewitness testimony that has already been rejected by the trial court to acquit co-accused with identical roles?
  • Does the gruesome and heinous nature of an offense permit a court to relax the standard of proof required to establish the guilt of an accused?
  • Is an accused person obliged to appear as a witness under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to substantiate a defense plea when the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution's case when medical and forensic evidence contradicts the ocular account regarding the manner of assault and weapon usage?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Talib Hussain & another2024 SHC 82 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-30Read full judgment →
• The State vs Syed Umar Kamal2024 SHC 1240 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-12Read full judgment →
• The State vs Shaikh Kaiser Waheed and another2024 SHC 1318 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-05
  case propertysuperdarinarcotics seizureperishable goodsrelease of propertyinventoryControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State against the trial court's judgment releasing 744 cartons of medicine seized alongside prohibited narcotic tablets in a container. The core legal questions involved whether these unrelated cartons of medicine constituted case property necessary for the trial and whether they were liable for confiscation under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Sindh High Court held that since the investigating officer confirmed no incriminating articles were found in the 744 cartons and the items risked perishing if detained, the trial court's order releasing the medicines on superdari with a proper inventory was justified and reasonable. The court laid down the principle that perishable goods or items unrelated to an offense and found not to be incriminating should not be detained indefinitely to rot, and the trial court has the authority to order their release on appropriate security after ensuring an inventory is prepared.

  Questions settled

  • Whether cartons of medicine unrelated to seized narcotics and containing no incriminating articles are liable for indefinite detention as case property?
  • Does a court have the authority to release perishable goods on superdari during the pendency of a trial?
  • Are vehicles or accompanying goods automatically liable to confiscation under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 when carrying lawfully imported substances alongside narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Shafi Ullah Alias Gura2024 PHC 232, 2025 YLR 506 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-06-11Read full judgment →
• The State vs Said Jan Afridi, etc2024 IHC 168, 2025 MLD 454 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-21
  money launderingpredicate offencetax evasionretrospective applicationSection 265-K Cr.P.C.proceeds of crimedue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged an acquittal order passed by a Special Judge (Customs, Taxation & Anti-Smuggling) under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding charges under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010. The core legal question was whether criminal prosecution for money laundering, predicated on tax evasion under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could proceed without a prior, concluded determination of tax liability by tax authorities, and whether the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 could apply retrospectively to transactions occurring before the inclusion of specific tax offences in its Schedule. The Court held that the prosecution was premature and groundless. It ruled that a predicate offence must be established through the tax hierarchy before money laundering charges can be initiated. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 cannot operate retrospectively to punish acts committed before the relevant amendments. Consequently, the Court upheld the acquittal, establishing the principle that criminal prosecution for money laundering based on tax evasion requires a prior, conclusive finding of tax evasion by competent tax authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal prosecution for money laundering based on tax evasion proceed without a prior, concluded determination of tax liability by tax authorities?
  • Does the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 apply retrospectively to predicate offences committed before their inclusion in the Schedule of the Act?
  • Is a prior determination of tax evasion by the tax hierarchy a mandatory prerequisite for initiating money laundering proceedings under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010?
  • What constitutes 'reasonable grounds to believe' for the purpose of initiating an investigation under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhabbat Jamal2024 PCRLJ 1492 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2024-04-29
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationattempted murderfurther inquirymala fidesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed by the State against an order of the Chief Court of Gilgit-Baltistan, which had granted post-arrest bail to the respondent, Muhabbat Jamal, in a case involving attempted murder and wrongful restraint. The core legal question was whether the bail granted by the Chief Court warranted cancellation due to the respondent's alleged involvement in a heinous offence falling under the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Appellate Court found that the prosecution's allegations of firing were unsubstantiated by physical evidence, such as recovered crime empties, and that the respondent had not caused any injury to the complainant. Furthermore, the Court noted the existence of prior civil litigation between the parties, suggesting potential mala fides. Holding that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any perversity or illegality in the impugned bail order, and noting that exceptional circumstances are required to cancel bail granted on merits, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the respondent's bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of recovered crime empties from the scene of occurrence entitle an accused to the benefit of further inquiry in a bail application?
  • What is the standard for cancelling post-arrest bail that has been granted on merits by a lower court?
  • Can the existence of prior civil litigation between parties be considered as a factor suggesting mala fides in a criminal case for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mr. Irfan Nawaz Memon, District Magistrate and three others2024 IHC 22, 2024 PLD Islamabad 256 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-01
  criminal contemptpreventive detentionmaintenance of public orderobstruction of justicefundamental rightsrule of lawlibertyabuse of authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses contempt of court proceedings initiated against the District Magistrate of Islamabad, the Senior Superintendent of Police, the Divisional Police Officer, and the Station House Officer for repeatedly issuing and soliciting unlawful preventive detention orders under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 against political workers and leaders, notably Shehryar Afridi, in direct defiance of judicial verdicts passed by the Islamabad High Court and the Lahore High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the executive authorities' systematic and synchronized reissuance of detention orders to frustrate court-ordered releases and prevent detainees from accessing justice constitutes criminal contempt of court. The Islamabad High Court held that the respondents' contumacious conduct, lack of bona fides, and deliberate circumvention of judicial orders amounted to an obstruction of the administration of justice and brought the justice system into disrepute. The court convicted the District Magistrate, Senior Superintendent of Police, and Station House Officer of criminal contempt under Article 204 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, sentencing them to varying terms of simple imprisonment and fines, while discharging the notice against the Divisional Police Officer. The key principle laid down is that public officials cannot exercise statutory powers in a colorable manner to nullify court judgments, and that executive defiance of judicial orders concerning fundamental rights and personal liberty constitutes a substantial detriment to the administration of justice punishable as criminal contempt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the reissuance of preventive detention orders under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 after superior courts have set aside previous orders on the same grounds constitute criminal contempt of court?
  • Whether public officials can justify the issuance of unlawful detention orders and disobedience of court orders on the ground of following recommendations made by a District Intelligence Committee?
  • Can the executive branch of the state defeat court-ordered bail and release by manufacturing fresh security reports to continually incarcerate an accused person?
  • Whether the test for mens rea in criminal contempt proceedings involving the disobedience of judicial orders is objective based on the effect of the contemnor's actions?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Manoo Kolhi2024 SHC 150 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-31
  criminal acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencemurderappreciation of evidencedelay in FIRreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court which acquitted the respondent of murder charges under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence, and whether the prosecution had established the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court’s judgment was well-reasoned and free from illegality. The Court found that the prosecution's case suffered from significant flaws, including an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, failure to prove motive, and lack of independent corroboration. The Court reaffirmed the principle that in an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is doubled, and appellate interference is limited to cases where the trial court’s findings are arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the High Court declined to interfere with the acquittal, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of appellate interference in a criminal acquittal appeal?
  • Does the doctrine of double presumption of innocence apply to appeals against acquittal?
  • Can an acquittal be set aside when the prosecution fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for a significant delay in lodging the FIR?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to establish guilt in the absence of reliable ocular evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Khalid Hussain Rathore2024 SC AJK 12 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-02-20
  acquittal appeallimitation periodpublic prosecutorSection 249-A Cr.P.C.State appealLaw Officerscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a High Court judgment dismissing the State's appeal against an acquittal order passed by a trial court under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions concerned the competence of Law Officers, specifically the Additional Advocate-General, to file appeals against acquittal on behalf of the State, and the applicable limitation period for such appeals, particularly whether the 30-day limit in Section 417(2-A) applies to State appeals. The Court held that Law Officers are deemed Public Prosecutors under the AJ&K Law Officers (Terms & Conditions) Act, 2014, and are thus competent to file such appeals. It further held that the 30-day limitation period applies only to aggrieved persons, whereas State appeals under Section 417(1) are governed by Article 157 of the Limitation Act, 1908, providing a six-month period. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal on merits, finding the acquittal under Section 249-A justified. The Court overruled the precedent in Rustam Khan (2017 SCR 1028), clarifying that State appeals against acquittal are not restricted by the 30-day limit.

  Questions settled

  • Are Additional Advocate-Generals and Assistant Advocate-Generals competent to file appeals against acquittal on behalf of the State?
  • Does the 30-day limitation period under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to appeals against acquittal filed by the State?
  • What is the applicable limitation period for an appeal against acquittal filed by the State under Section 417(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an application for acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be filed before the recording of prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Faqir Hussain2024 SHC 880, 2025 PCRLJ 913 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-22
  revision applicationplea of guiltnarcotic substanceillegal sentencebailControl of Narcotic Substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application was filed by the State through ANF against the judgment dated 16.01.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge CNS-1 Karachi, whereby the private respondent was convicted on a so-called plea of guilt made through a subsequent application during trial and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years without imposing a mandatory fine, for possessing and transporting 65 kg of Charas. The core legal question was whether an accused can plead guilty at a subsequent stage of trial via an application and whether the imposed sentence was lawful. The Sindh High Court held that the law does not permit accepting a plea of guilt at a subsequent stage of the trial, and since the recovered narcotic substance exceeded 10 kg, it entailed a much harsher punishment under the law. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment, directed the trial court to proceed with the case per law, and allowed the respondent to remain on bail subject to fresh surety.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court accept the plea of guilt of an accused made through an application at a subsequent stage of the trial?
  • Does the recovery of narcotic substances exceeding 10 kg entail a mandatory sentence of death or imprisonment for life and fine?
  • Whether an appellate or revisional court can set aside a patently illegal sentence and remand the matter for fresh disposal?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Anwar Ali Brohi and others2024 PLD Sindh 165 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-09
  contempt of courtcriminal contemptunconditional apologyjudicial officerillegal detentionhabeas corpuspolice high-handednesssui generis proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a contempt reference made by a Sessions Judge after police officials at a police station—including an SHO and constables—physically assaulted, abused, and wrongfully confined a judicial magistrate who was executing a surprise raid pursuant to a habeas corpus petition under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The contemnors snatched official and personal items from the magistrate and obstructed him from discharging his lawful duties. The core legal question concerned the liability of the police officials for criminal contempt and the legal effect of their subsequent unconditional apologies. The Sindh High Court held that the acts of the contemnors constituted grave criminal contempt aimed at obstructing the administration of justice and undermining the judiciary. Although an unconditional apology admits guilt and obviates the need for a full trial, the court convicted the contemnors while adopting a lenient stance due to their remorse. The court laid down that interfering with judicial officers executing lawful warrants constitutes serious criminal contempt, and while unconditional apologies signify remorse, courts retain discretion to impose sentences while considering mitigating circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the tendering of an unconditional apology in contempt proceedings obviate the need for framing a charge and recording evidence?
  • Whether physical assault and wrongful confinement of a judicial magistrate during a court-ordered raid constitutes criminal contempt?
  • Can a court accept an unconditional apology while still convicting and sentencing a contemnor based on the gravity of the offense?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Regional Director, Anti-Narcotics Force Balochistan, Quetta vs Muhammad alias Abdul Hadi2024 PCRLJ 1946 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-04-27
  criminal acquittal appealnarcotics recoverycomplainant as investigating officerFSL report delaychain of custodybenefit of doubtfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved the legality of the complainant acting as the investigating officer, the evidentiary value of a delayed re-tested FSL report, and the requirement of independent corroboration in narcotics cases. The court held that the practice of the complainant acting as the investigating officer prejudices the accused, that sending narcotics for re-testing after a long delay compromises the chain of custody and benefits the prosecution improperly, and that the prosecution's case was fraught with serious doubts. The appeal was dismissed in limine, upholding the acquittal. The key principles laid down are that an investigating officer must remain a neutral and independent authority, that a complainant cannot investigate their own case, and that flaws and lapses in prosecution evidence must enure to the benefit of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a complainant police officer acting as the investigating officer of the same case cause prejudice to the accused?
  • Can a delayed re-tested FSL report cure initial protocol deficiencies in narcotics cases?
  • Whether the prosecution's failure to conduct a test purchase on spy information creates doubt in the case.
  • What is the evidentiary value of a chemical examiner's report obtained after an unexplained long delay?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Prosecutor-General, Punjab. vs Mubarik Ahmad Sani2024 SCP 77 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-26
  review petitionInjunctions of Islamconstitutional interpretationamicus curiaereligious institutionsSupreme Court procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a review petition against the order dated 6 February 2024 passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a criminal case involving Mubarik Ahmad Sani. During the proceedings, applications were filed by third parties, including a political party, seeking to be arrayed as parties to the review. The core legal question concerned the mechanism for entertaining objections and seeking expert opinions regarding the interpretation of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Injunctions of Islam. The Court decided to entertain all intervention applications, allowed parties to the case to raise objections to the order under review, and permitted other interested entities and individuals to submit written opinions limited to constitutional and Islamic law interpretations. Furthermore, the Court formally issued notices to several prominent religious and academic institutions—including the Council of Islamic Ideology and various Islamic seminaries and research bodies—to assist the Court on the Injunctions of Islam within a stipulated timeframe of three weeks.

  Questions settled

  • Whether third parties and political organizations can be permitted to submit written opinions or be arrayed as parties in a review petition involving questions of Islamic law?
  • Can the Supreme Court issue notices to religious and academic institutions to seek assistance regarding the Injunctions of Islam during review proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore vs Chaudhry2024 SCP 368, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-27
  quashment of FIRconstitutional jurisdictioncivil and criminal proceedingsfraudulent transfer of state landcognizable offenceanti-corruptionprobability of conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition calling in question an order of the Lahore High Court whereby an FIR registered against the respondents under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 relating to the fraudulent transfer of state land was quashed. The core legal questions involved whether an FIR can be quashed prematurely by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution on grounds of a pending civil dispute, lack of probability of conviction, or alleged mala fides. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR, reiterating that the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction to quash an FIR must be exercised sparingly only in exceptional cases where no cognizable offence is disclosed, and that criminal and civil proceedings can proceed simultaneously. Furthermore, the evaluation of evidence and probability of conviction are matters for the trial court, not for determination in writ jurisdiction. The appeals were consequently allowed and the impugned order of the High Court setting aside the FIR was reversed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court quash an FIR under Article 199 of the Constitution on the ground that a civil dispute is pending between the parties?
  • Whether criminal proceedings and civil proceedings relating to the same transaction can proceed simultaneously?
  • Is the High Court justified in evaluating the probability of conviction to quash an FIR at the investigative stage?
  • What are the exceptional circumstances under which a High Court may exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to quash a first information report?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa at Dar-ul-Qaza, Swat vs Shehbaz son of Muhammad Arif and others2024 F.S.C 20, 2025 MLD 256, 2025 PLJ FSC 39 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-11-20
  appeal against acquittalbenefit of doubtocular testimonycontradictions in evidenceidentification of accuseddouble presumption of innocencere-appraisal of evidenceanti-terrorism trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, which acquitted the respondents of charges relating to a terrorist attack on a police vehicle resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of major contradictions in witness statements regarding the identification of the accused, the role of abscondence, and the strict parameters for interfering with an acquittal judgment carrying a double presumption of innocence. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court's findings of acquittal were based on a proper appreciation of evidence, major contradictions and improbabilities in the prosecution's case, and the lack of reliable identification of the accused. The court reiterated the principle that an appellate court should be extremely slow to interfere with an acquittal unless the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or based on a gross misreading of evidence, and that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal based on the re-appraisal of evidence when the trial court's findings are plausible and supported by the record?
  • Does the mere abscondence of an accused persons for a prolonged period conclusively establish their guilt in the absence of solid substantive evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of high probabilities and suspicion when direct ocular testimony suffers from glaring contradictions regarding the identity of the perpetrators?
  • What is the scope and standard of review for an appellate court hearing an appeal against an acquittal where a double presumption of innocence is attached to the respondents?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through A.N.F., Rawalpindi vs Obaid Khan (decd) through LRs &2024 SCP 181, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 810, 2024 PLJ SC 607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-23
  person aggrievedright of appealproperty forfeituresmugglingstatutory interpretationAnti-Narcotic Forcemaintainability of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns whether the Anti-Narcotic Force, as a complainant, qualifies as a "person aggrieved" under Section 43 of the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977, to challenge an order of a Special Judge regarding the forfeiture of property. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme, noting that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and must be strictly construed. The Court held that the role of the complainant ends upon providing information to the Special Judge, as the subsequent proceedings involve only the Special Judge and the accused, with the burden of proof resting on the latter. Consequently, the Anti-Narcotic Force, having suffered no infringement of a legal right or direct injury, cannot be considered a "person aggrieved" but merely a "person annoyed" by the adverse finding. The Court affirmed that the appeal was not maintainable, dismissed the petition, and observed that the current legislative framework lacks a mechanism for the State to appeal such orders, recommending parliamentary intervention to amend the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Anti-Narcotic Force qualify as a "person aggrieved" under Section 43 of the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977?
  • Is the right of appeal under the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977, available to a complainant who has suffered no direct legal injury?
  • Does the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977, provide the State or Government an express right of appeal against an order of a Special Judge?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through A.A.G. vs Akbar Khan and another2024 YLR 1662 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-14
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtcircumstantial evidencecall detail recordmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, as it was an unseen occurrence with no eyewitnesses, relying instead on a missing report, call detail records, motive, and a retracted confession. The Peshawar High Court examined the record and noted major contradictions regarding the cell numbers, failure of the prosecution to obtain and produce necessary call detail records to substantiate the telephonic communications or trace the unknown caller, and the hostility of key witnesses who failed to support the prosecution's version of events. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and even a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld based on the established principle that benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal judgment can be interfered with when the prosecution fails to establish its case through reliable direct or circumstantial evidence?
  • Is a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused person?
  • Does the failure to obtain and produce call detail records to verify crucial telephonic communications create a fatal flaw in a circumstantial evidence case?
  • Are corroboratory pieces of evidence like recoveries and confessions helpful to the prosecution when the primary charge has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• The State of Libya through its Head of Mission in Pakistan vs Civil Judge2024 IHC 190, 2025 PLD Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-27Read full judgment →
• The State and others vs Nisar Ali Khan and others2024 PHC 400, 2025 PCRLJ 936 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-08
  superdaritampered chassisbona fide purchaservehicle registrationcriminal investigationdue diligencepublic safety
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several consolidated writ petitions filed by the State challenging the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Swat, which directed the return of seized motor vehicles to the respondents on superdari. The core legal question was whether vehicles with tampered, welded, or refitted chassis numbers, which are subject to ongoing criminal investigations for fraud and forgery, should be released to individuals claiming to be bona fide purchasers. The Court held that the vehicles could not be returned, setting aside the revisional court's judgments. The ratio of the decision is that vehicles with tampered chassis numbers lack legal legitimacy and cannot be permitted to ply on public roads, as doing so would undermine vehicle registration systems and public safety. Furthermore, the Court established that a purchaser cannot claim the status of a 'bona fide purchaser' if they failed to exercise due diligence or care regarding the vehicle's legal status and history of alterations at the time of purchase. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate retrieval of the vehicles from the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle with a tampered or refitted chassis number be released on superdari to a claimant?
  • Does a purchaser of a vehicle with an altered chassis number qualify as a bona fide purchaser if they failed to verify the vehicle's history?
  • Is the owner of a vehicle required to report alterations to the chassis to the registration authority under the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965?
  • Does the court have the authority to order the retrieval of vehicles previously released on superdari if the vehicles are subject to criminal investigation for tampering?
  Read full judgment →
• The Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad: In the matter of vs Not2024 PTD 86 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2022-05-19Read full judgment →
• The Secretary School Education, Government of the Punjab, Lahore etc. vs Riaz Ahmed and others2024 SCP 114, 2024 SCMR 809, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 821 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-19
  selection graderegularization of servicescivil servantsservice tribunal jurisdictioncontract employeesexecutive policypay revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The Secretary Schools Education, Government of Punjab, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had allowed the respondents' appeals regarding the grant of selection grade. The respondents were initially appointed on contract as Graduate Primary Teachers in BS-14 in 1995 and their services were subsequently regularized in 2004 with retrospective effect from their date of joining. They claimed a selection grade based on Rule 8(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants Pay Revision Rules, 1977 and a 1983 notification. The Supreme Court examined the legal position and held that the grant of a selection grade is an executive function requiring a specific government policy and is not an inherent right under the civil servants law unless expressly formulated for a specific post. The Court found that no such policy or higher pay scale sanctioned existed for the post of Graduate Primary Teacher, and the Service Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to create or assume such a right in the absence of a government policy. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant has a vested right to claim a selection grade in the absence of a specific government policy formulated for their post?
  • Does a court or service tribunal have the jurisdiction to compel the Government to formulate a policy for the grant of a selection grade?
  • Can retrospective regularization of contract employees create a right to a financial benefit such as a selection grade that did not exist during the relevant period?
  • Is the grant of a selection grade an appointment by promotion or an executive function governed by policy under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• The Punjab Highway Department and others vs Sh. Abdur Razzaq &2024 LHC 3436, 2024 PLJ Lahore 674, 2024 CLD 1335 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-12Read full judgment →
• The Monal Group of Companies, Islamabad and others vs Capital2024 SCP 120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-21
  Margalla Hills National Parkenvironmental degradationlease agreementCapital Development AuthorityIslamabad Wildlife Management BoardFundamental Right to lifecommercial activities
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the commercial activities, lease agreements, and environmental degradation within the Margalla Hills National Park. The core legal questions involve the legality of lease agreements executed by the Remount, Veterinary and Farms Directorate, the statutory prohibitions against running restaurants and commercial projects in the National Park under wildlife and zoning laws, and the respective management authorities of the Capital Development Authority and the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board. The court observed that the Directorate is not a legal entity, rendering its lease agreement void, and noted that commercial activities violate environmental laws and the Fundamental Right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution. The court directed parties to submit comprehensive records, lease lists, and proposals for systematically restoring the integrity and ecological balance of the National Park. The key principle laid down is that the Margalla Hills National Park must be strictly preserved, conserved, and managed solely for permissible recreational, educational, and research purposes, with zero tolerance for unauthorized commercial exploitation or deforestation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a component of the Pakistan Army such as the Remount, Veterinary and Farms Directorate lawfully execute a lease agreement regarding land in the Margalla Hills National Park?
  • Does the setting up and running of restaurants within the Margalla Hills National Park violate section 21 of the Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether the Capital Development Authority or the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board holds the primary statutory management powers over the Margalla Hills National Park?
  • Does the right to a meaningful life under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan encompass the protection and preservation of national parks and natural environments?
  Read full judgment →
• The Monal Group of Companies, Islamabad and others vs Capital2024 SCP 206, 2024 SCMR 1563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-11
  Margalla Hills National Parkenvironmental protectioncommercial leasesCapital Development AuthorityIslamabad Wildlife Management Boardpublic interest litigationconservation law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the preservation and conservation of the Margalla Hills National Park in Islamabad. The core legal question addressed was the legality of commercial activities, specifically restaurants, operating within the protected precincts of the National Park under leases or licenses granted by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and the Remount, Veterinary and Farms Directorate. The Supreme Court held that all such leases, licenses, or permissions granted by the CDA or the Directorate were contrary to the provisions of the Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979, and were consequently declared to be of no legal effect. The Court ordered all restaurants situated on or around Pir Sohawa Road to vacate the premises within three months, though it permitted small, licensed kiosks to continue operations under strict regulatory conditions. The judgment establishes the principle that commercial exploitation of protected national park land is prohibited by law, and that administrative authorities lack the legal competence to authorize such activities in violation of statutory conservation mandates. The Court further directed that all rent or fees deposited in court be transferred to the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board.

  Questions settled

  • Are leases or licenses granted by the Capital Development Authority for commercial activities within the Margalla Hills National Park legally valid?
  • Does the Remount, Veterinary and Farms Directorate possess the legal authority to lease land within the National Park for commercial restaurant operations?
  • Can small kiosks continue to operate within the National Park if they are not licensed by the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board?
  • To which entity should rent or fees deposited in court for commercial activities in the National Park be paid?
  Read full judgment →
• The Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer M/s The United Insurance2024 IHC 92, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 79 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Inspector General of Police, Punjab & Others vs Waris Ali (deceased)2024 SCP 133, 2024 SCMR 1109, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 883, 2024 PLJ SC 482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-17
  police promotionmandatory trainingseniority disputeservice tribunalupper subordinatescapacity buildingPolice Rules 1934
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which allowed Respondent No.1's claim for proforma promotion to the ranks of Assistant Sub-Inspector and Sub-Inspector by alleging supersession by juniors. The core legal question was whether a police officer can claim retrospective or proforma promotion without completing the mandatory training courses stipulated under the statutory rules and whether the named officers were indeed junior to Respondent No.1. The Supreme Court held that the service record clearly established that the contesting officers were senior in service and had completed their mandatory training courses prior to Respondent No.1, rendering the claim factually incorrect. Furthermore, the Court held that promotion in the police force is strictly contingent upon fulfilling mandatory training requirements under Rule 19.25 of the Police Rules, 1934, and antedated promotions that bypass training cannot be sustained. The key principles laid down are that institutional capacity building and strict adherence to statutory training frameworks take precedence over promotion litigation, and the police force must be allowed to regulate its internal governance autonomously in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a police officer claim proforma promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector or Sub-Inspector without completing the mandatory training courses prescribed under Rule 19.25 of the Police Rules, 1934?
  • Whether antedated promotions are permissible when they upset the statutory training requirements of a disciplined force?
  • To what extent should courts interfere in the internal governance and service matters of the police force regulated by the Police Order, 2002 and the Police Rules, 1934?
  Read full judgment →
• The Imperial Electric Company (Private) Limited vs M/s Zhongxing Telecom2025 IHC 6, 2024 IHC 274, 2025 CLD 420 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-20
  arbitration awardlimitation periodfiling of awardcivil revisionmaintainability of appealpecuniary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from an order of the Additional District Judge, Islamabad, holding that an arbitration award filed by the arbitrator was barred by limitation under Article 178 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908. The core legal question was whether the 90-day limitation period prescribed in Article 178 applies when an arbitrator files an award in court either on their own or upon a party's request, rather than upon a formal application filed by a party seeking a court direction to the arbitrator. The Islamabad High Court held that Article 178 exclusively governs applications filed by parties seeking a court direction for the arbitrator to file the award, and prescribes no time limit for an arbitrator filing the award upon a party's request or on their own initiative. The Court also held that an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is not maintainable against such an order, but exercised its discretion to convert the appeal into a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, setting aside the impugned order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 90-day limitation period prescribed in Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply when an arbitrator files an award in court upon a request by a party?
  • Is an order holding an arbitration award to be barred by limitation appealable under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Can a High Court convert an incompetent appeal into a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Is there any period of limitation prescribed for an arbitrator to file an arbitration award in court?
  Read full judgment →
• The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others vs M_S Hma Pumps (Pvt) Ltd Office No.10, 3rd Floor the Mall Tower Mall Road, Peshawar Cantt. and another2024 PHC 296, 2025 PLD Peshawar 41, 2025 CLD 133, 2024 PHC 248 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-20Read full judgment →
• The Government of Balochistan, through its Secretary Energy Department, Quetta and another vs Muhammad Yasir2024 SCP 400, 2025 SCMR 367, 2025 PLJ SC 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-04
  service appealappointment cancellationdue processprinciples of natural justicereview jurisdictionservice tribunalfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil petitions arose from a service dispute where the respondent was appointed as a Junior Clerk by the Energy Department, Government of Balochistan, after successfully qualifying through an advertisement, test, and interview. Weeks later, the department withdrew his appointment order without a show-cause notice, claiming that only one post was vacant and two had been mistakenly advertised due to a lack of coordination. The Balochistan Service Tribunal allowed the respondent's service appeal and set aside the cancellation, prompting the department to approach the Supreme Court. The core legal questions involved whether a department can arbitrarily withdraw a regular appointment order without due process due to its own internal mistakes, and the parameters of review jurisdiction under service tribunal laws. The Supreme Court held that an innocent candidate cannot be made a scapegoat for departmental errors and that withdrawing an appointment without a hearing violates fundamental rights to due process and natural justice. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that public functionaries must act fairly and that review jurisdiction cannot be used as a rehearing of the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department arbitrarily withdraw an appointment order issued after a proper selection process without affording a right of hearing?
  • Whether an innocent candidate can be made to suffer or be terminated from service due to administrative errors or a lack of coordination within a government department?
  • What are the permissible parameters and grounds for exercising review jurisdiction by a Service Tribunal?
  • Does the withdrawal of an appointment letter without a show-cause notice violate the fundamental right to due process under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• The General Manager, Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank, Ltd, etc vs Ghulam Mustafa and others2024 SCP 212, 2024 SCMR 1458, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1028, 2024 PLJ SC 638 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-15
  master and servantstatutory rules of servicewrit petition maintainabilitycooperative bankdepartmental appealconstitutional jurisdictioncivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses civil appeals and a civil petition concerning the maintainability of constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, filed by employees of the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank, Limited against adverse departmental actions. The core legal question was whether the Bank's service rules are statutory in nature, and whether writ petitions are maintainable in the absence of statutory service rules. The Court held that the Bank's Staff Service Rules, 2010, framed by the Board of Directors, are non-statutory and govern the employment relationship purely under the common law concept of master and servant. Consequently, writ petitions against the Bank are not maintainable, and the aggrieved employees must seek their remedy through a civil suit in a civil court. The Court laid down that in the absence of statutory rules of service, constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked, and reiterated the binding nature of judicial precedents under Articles 189 and the doctrine of stare decisis. However, enforcing the doctrine of indoor management, the Court directed the Bank to decide the pending departmental appeals of the employees in accordance with its internal rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution are maintainable against a corporate body or bank in the absence of statutory rules of service?
  • Does the relationship between the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank, Limited and its employees fall strictly under the domain of master and servant?
  • Can the Board of Directors' internal staff service rules be equated with statutory rules of service?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for an employee governed by non-statutory service rules who challenges a termination or adverse departmental action?
  Read full judgment →
• The Executive Director (P&GS) State Life, Principal Office Karachi and others2024 SCP 382, 2025 SCMR 249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-16
  date of birth correctionwrit jurisdictiondisputed questions of factnecessary partysuperannuationservice recordlachesjuristic person
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a service dispute where an employee sought to correct his date of birth in official records near the age of superannuation, relying on a matriculation certificate despite having consistently declared an earlier date of birth in his CNIC, passport, and initial service documents. The Peshawar High Court allowed the employee's writ petition, prompting this appeal by the employer. The Supreme Court held that the employee failed to implead the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan as a necessary party, instead suing only individual officials, which is legally improper for a corporate entity. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 is not the appropriate forum to resolve disputed questions of fact, such as conflicting evidence regarding a date of birth, which requires plenary civil proceedings. Additionally, the Court emphasized that requests for date of birth correction must be made within the prescribed limitation period and cannot be entertained at the verge of retirement. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the writ petition dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court resolve disputed questions of fact, such as conflicting evidence regarding an employee's date of birth, under its writ jurisdiction?
  • Is it legally permissible for an employee to sue individual officials instead of the corporate employer in a service matter?
  • Can an employee seek correction of their date of birth in service records at the verge of retirement after years of service?
  • Does the non-joinder of a necessary party in a writ petition warrant the dismissal of the petition?
  Read full judgment →