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.

• The Election Commission of Pakistan through its Secretary and others vs Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf through its authorized person and others2024 SCP 32, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 267, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 295, · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  intra-party electionselection symbolElection Commission of Pakistanpolitical partiesArticle 17Section 215 Elections Actlis pendensforum shopping
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose out of a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which set aside the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) order declaring Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) ineligible to obtain an election symbol due to its failure to hold valid intra-party elections. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court concerned whether the ECP has jurisdiction to examine the validity of intra-party elections, whether withholding an election symbol under Section 215(5) of the Elections Act 2017 violates Article 17 of the Constitution, and whether a political party can simultaneously agitate the same legal grievance before two different High Courts. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Peshawar High Court's judgment and upholding the ECP's order. The Court held that holding periodic, democratic intra-party elections is mandatory under the Elections Act 2017 and integral to Article 17(2) rights. When a political party fails to demonstrate that genuine intra-party elections took place, the ECP is fully empowered under Section 215 to withhold an election symbol.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have the authority to examine whether intra-party elections were held in accordance with a political party's constitution and the law?
  • Does the failure of a political party to hold valid intra-party elections justify the Election Commission declaring it ineligible to obtain an election symbol under Section 215 of the Elections Act 2017?
  • Can a party file constitutional petitions agitating the same subject matter simultaneously in two different High Courts?
  • Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have locus standi to appeal a High Court judgment that overturns its administrative order?
  Read full judgment →
• The Director, Directorate General of Intelligence & Investigation-FBR, Regional Office, Karachi vs M_s. Sun Shine Company Airport Road, Gawadar2023 SHC 692, 2024 PTD 325 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-06Read full judgment →
• The Director General, Intelligence Bureau Government of Pakistan & others2024 SCP 415, 2025 SCMR 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-15
  departmental inquiryex parte proceedingsdue processnatural justiceincarcerated employeedisciplinary proceedingsright to fair defense
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition challenges a Federal Service Tribunal judgment reinstating an Intelligence Bureau employee who was removed from service following a criminal conviction, later overturned via compromise. The core legal question concerns whether a departmental inquiry conducted ex parte while the employee was incarcerated violates due process and natural justice. The Supreme Court held that while disciplinary proceedings and criminal trials are distinct and may proceed concurrently, conducting an ex parte inquiry while the employee is incarcerated—thereby denying him the opportunity to defend himself—constitutes a violation of due process and natural justice. The Court set aside the reinstatement order and directed a de novo inquiry to be conducted, affording the respondent a fair opportunity to defend himself. The key principle laid down is that while an employer may conduct disciplinary proceedings regardless of criminal acquittal, the right to a fair defense is a vested right under Article 10-A of the Constitution; thus, an inquiry officer must ensure the accused can personally participate, cross-examine witnesses, and adduce evidence, which is impossible during incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Does conducting an ex parte departmental inquiry against an incarcerated employee violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Can disciplinary proceedings and criminal trials proceed concurrently against a civil servant?
  • Is an acquittal based on a compromise in a criminal case conclusive regarding an employee's suitability for service in a disciplined force?
  • Does the right to a fair defense under Article 10-A of the Constitution require the personal appearance of an accused civil servant in a departmental inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• The Deputy Commissioner Bajaur and others vs Mst. Mahi Sultan and another2024 CLC 64 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-18Read full judgment →
• The D. G. Customs Valuation, Karachi & others vs M/s. A.A. Tyre , Karachi2024 SHC 700 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s. Inter Quest Informatics ServicesPTCL 2024 CL. 201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-08
  income taxdouble taxation conventionroyaltiesbusiness profitssoftware leasetax treaty interpretationappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns fourteen income tax references regarding whether payments received by a non-resident Dutch company for the lease of software programs (FLIC tapes) to a Pakistani entity constitute 'royalties' under Article 12 of the Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation between Pakistan and the Netherlands, or 'business profits' under Article 7. The Income Tax Officer, Commissioner (Appeals), and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concurrently held the receipts were royalties, while the High Court held they were not. The Supreme Court, by a majority, allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgments. The Court held that the High Court erred in its jurisdiction by re-evaluating factual findings and misapplying the OECD Model Convention instead of the UN Model Convention, upon which the bilateral treaty was based. The Court emphasized that the respondent failed to establish the nature of the receipts to qualify for exemption and that the High Court should not have ventured into technical factual determinations without adequate evidence. The holding restores the assessment orders, affirming that the receipts were taxable as royalties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether payments received for the lease of software programs constitute 'royalties' or 'business profits' under the Pakistan-Netherlands Double Taxation Convention?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to re-evaluate factual findings in income tax references under Section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 and Section 133(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001?
  • Is the definition of 'royalties' in the Pakistan-Netherlands Double Taxation Convention based on the UN Model Convention or the OECD Model Convention?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal Zone, Lto Multan. vs M_s an Textile Mills Ltd. Sheikhupura Road, Faisalabad2024 LHC 4539, 2024 PLJ Lahore 859 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-17Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal Zone, Large Taxpayers Office, Lahore. and others vs M_s Mayfair Spinning Mills Ltd. etc2024 SCP 380, 2025 SCMR 1, 2025 PTD 180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-12
  sales taxinput tax adjustmenttax refundtaxable suppliespast and closed transactionsvested rightssubordinate legislationretrospective exemption
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan resolves a set of appeals and a petition concerning the interpretation of input tax adjustment and refund provisions under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The core legal question revolves around whether a registered person is entitled to deduct input tax under Section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 in respect of raw materials destroyed by fire before being consumed in manufacturing, and whether retrospective exemption notifications can nullify past input tax adjustments. The Court held that Section 7 is a beneficial provision allowing input tax adjustment correlated to the tax period and the purpose of purchase for taxable supplies made or to be made, and that loss of raw materials through fire does not disqualify a taxpayer from claiming adjustments or refunds under Section 10. Furthermore, the Court held that vested rights accrued from completed monthly sales tax returns prior to retrospective subordinate legislation constitute past and closed transactions which cannot be undone by executive SROs. The appeal and petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether input tax deduction can be made under section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 in respect of goods which got destroyed by fire and do not remain available for making taxable supplies?
  • Does the loss of input or raw materials through fire fall within the scope of goods used or to be used for any purpose other than taxable supplies under section 8 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Can a retrospective exemption notification issued via subordinate legislation nullify input tax adjustments already availed and crystallized as past and closed transactions?
  • Whether a registered person must wait for raw materials to be actually consumed in the manufacturing process before availing input tax adjustment against output tax under section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Audit-9_E&C-18), Corporate Zone, Rto, Peshawar vs M_s. Peshawar Electric Supply Company Ltd. (PESCO), WAPDA House, PeshawarPTCL 2024 CL. 818 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2024-04-30Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue and others vs Mekotex (Pvt) Limited &2024 SCP 316, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 1168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-18
  tax creditvested rightsretrospective legislationpast and closed transactionsincome taxfundamental rightsequality before the lawfiscal legislationconstitutional interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the constitutionality of amendments made to Section 65B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ("ITO") by the Finance Act, 2019, which curtailed a 10% tax credit on plant and machinery investments and reverted the eligibility deadline. The core legal questions involved whether the legislature could retrospectively affect vested rights, whether taxpayers who had purchased but not installed machinery acquired vested rights, and whether the 2019 amendments violated fundamental rights under Articles 8, 18, 23, 24, and 25 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the competent legislature has plenary powers to legislate retrospectively and take away vested rights. The Court determined that fulfilling both purchase and installation conditions was necessary to accrue a vested right, and that the proviso reducing the tax credit rate for tax year 2019 violated the equality guarantee under Article 25. Consequently, the Court partly allowed the appeals, upholding the amendment altering the expiration date while striking down the discriminatory proviso reducing the tax credit rate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the legislature is competent to enact laws with retrospective effect that take away or impair vested rights?
  • Whether the purchase of plant and machinery alone is sufficient to acquire a vested right for a tax credit under Section 65B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, without its prior installation?
  • At what point does a vested right to claim an income tax credit mature into a past and closed transaction?
  • Whether the reduction of the tax credit rate from 10% to 5% for the tax year 2019 via the Finance Act, 2019 infringes the fundamental right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue (Corporate Zone), Peshawar vs M/s.PTCL 2024 CL. 114, 2024 PTD 1214 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-10Read full judgment →
• The Commisioner Inland Revenue Legal Zone, Large Taxpayers Office2024 LHC 4527 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-14Read full judgment →
• The Collectorate of Customs Hyderabad through Deputy Collector, Customs (Preventive) Larkana_Sukkur vs The Collector of Customs (Adjudication) Quetta Camp Office at Hyderabad and another2024 PTD (Trib) 1526 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2023-12-13Read full judgment →
• Time Press (Private) Limited vs Sui Southern Gas Company & Others2024 SHC 1244 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-15Read full judgment →
• The Standard Chartered Bank Pakistan Ltd. vs Nasim Ahmed & others2024 SHC 506 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-21Read full judgment →
• The Collector, Collectorate of Customs, Hyderabad vs M/s. Frontier2024 SHC 16 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-15Read full judgment →
• The Collector, Collectorate of Customs, Hyderabad vs Fazal Qadeer S/o2024 SHC 1178, PTCL 2025 CL. 293 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-31Read full judgment →
• The Collector, Collectorate of Customs, Hyderabad vs Akhtar Ali S/o2024 SHC 856 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-06Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, through the Additional Collector of Customs2024 SHC 290 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, Through Additional Collector of Customs MCC2024 SHC 86 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, Karachi vs M/s. Maqsood Faisal Printing Press2024 SHC 876 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-19Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, Karachi vs M/s. M.T. Baering, Karachi2024 SHC 1176 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-29Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, Karachi vs M/s. Allmed Laboratories, Karachi &2024 SHC 1350, PTCL 2025 CL. 255 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-18Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, Enforcement, Karachi vs M/s Taj Gasoline Pvt.2024 SHC 20 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-16Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs vs M/s. Dua International & Co.2024 SHC 994 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs (Law), Model Customs Collectorate vs Messrs HKL Traders, Peshawar2024 PTD 595 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-27Read full judgment →
• The Board of Governors through its Chairman Khyber Teaching Hospital2024 PHC 292 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tetra Pak (Pakistan) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 PTD 183 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-23Read full judgment →
• Telephone Employees Coop House and others vs Province of Sindh &2024 SHC 1248 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-11Read full judgment →
• Teerath vs Sht Beena2024 SHC 1088 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-26Read full judgment →
• TCB Aviation (Pvt.) Limited vs Sri Lankan Airlines Limited through Country2024 CLD 1145, 2024 PLD Sindh 387 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-17Read full judgment →
• Tayyaba Akbar vs Rais Asif2024 SC AJK 70 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-11-11Read full judgment →
• Tauheed Farooqi vs Faiqa Anmol and others2024 PLD Peshawar 25 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-20Read full judgment →
• Taufiq Asif. vs General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf and others_2024 SCP 87, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-10
  high treasonterritorial jurisdictionwrit jurisdictionalternate remedySpecial Courtjudicial reviewMustafa Impextrial in absentiabinding precedent
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves the Supreme Court of Pakistan's review of a Lahore High Court judgment that had set aside the high treason trial and conviction of General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf. The core legal questions concerned the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, the maintainability of a writ petition when an alternate statutory remedy of appeal exists, and the retrospective application of the 'Mustafa Impex' principle regarding federal government actions. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the Lahore High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction over proceedings conducted by a Special Court in Islamabad. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the High Court could not exercise writ jurisdiction when Section 12(3) of the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976, provided an exclusive right of appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that judicial review cannot be used to usurp appellate jurisdiction or bypass binding Supreme Court precedents. Key principles established include the 'dominant object' test for territorial jurisdiction and the rule that High Courts must not interfere in matters where a specific statutory forum and appellate route to the Supreme Court are prescribed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court possesses territorial jurisdiction under Article 199 to review acts of a Special Court sitting outside its territorial limits based on the 'dominant object' of the petition?
  • Can a High Court exercise writ jurisdiction when a special statute provides an exclusive right of appeal directly to the Supreme Court?
  • Does the principle laid down in the Mustafa Impex case regarding the definition of 'Federal Government' have retrospective application to actions taken prior to June 18, 2016?
  • Is it permissible for a High Court to declare a statutory provision ultra vires when the petitioner did not specifically challenge the entire provision or show they were an 'aggrieved person' in that regard?
  • What is the legal effect of a High Court judgment passed in derogation of express directions and binding precedents of the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Tassawar Hussain vs The Regional Police Officer, Multan and another2024 SCP 393, 2025 SCMR 235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-24
  service tribunaldismissal from servicelimitation periodcondonation of delayincarcerated civil servantdepartmental appealmixed question of law and fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner police constable's appeal against his dismissal from service as time-barred. The core legal question concerns whether the period of limitation for filing a departmental appeal runs against an employee who was incarcerated during the relevant period and was never served with the show cause notice or the dismissal order. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and remanded the matter for decision on merits. The Court held that a civil servant who is behind bars and has not been served with adverse departmental orders cannot be held solely responsible for delay, and the department cannot take refuge in limitation. The key principle laid down is that limitation questions involving incarcerated employees are mixed questions of law and fact requiring judicious evaluation of the starting point of limitation, and courts or tribunals must adopt a lenient and sympathetic view to advance the cause of justice rather than nonsuiting a litigant on technicalities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period of limitation for a departmental appeal runs against a civil servant who was incarcerated and never served with the dismissal order?
  • Can a service tribunal dismiss a service appeal on the ground of limitation without evaluating the factual controversies surrounding the service of show cause notices and orders?
  • Does the failure of an incarcerated employee to file a departmental appeal from jail constitute culpable negligence when the foundational orders were not communicated to him?
  Read full judgment →
• Tasleem Zahin vs Majid Ali and others2024 SC AJK 14 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-03-11
  circumstantial evidenceretracted confessionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder trialmedical evidenceburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which upheld the acquittal of the respondent accused of murder. The core legal question concerns whether the circumstantial evidence presented—specifically a retracted confession under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the recovery of an iron rod—was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be unbroken and lead solely to the accused's culpability. Here, the medical evidence, indicating sharp-edged weapon injuries, contradicted the prosecution’s claim that an iron rod was the murder weapon. Furthermore, the retracted confession lacked necessary independent corroboration, and the prosecution’s shifting narrative regarding the motive further weakened the case. Affirming the acquittal, the Court reiterated the fundamental principle that even a single infirmity creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal, as it is better to acquit the guilty than to convict the innocent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence when the medical report contradicts the alleged weapon of offense?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a retracted confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when it lacks independent corroboration?
  • Does a shift in the prosecution's theory regarding the motive for a crime undermine the reliability of the entire case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt if there is a single material contradiction in the prosecution's evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Tasleem Zahin d/o Abdul Majeed Challayar Tehsil Dudyal, District Mirpur vs2024 SC AJK 14 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Tarique Hussain Chajro vs P.O Sindh & Others2024 SHC 562 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-23Read full judgment →
• Tariq Zubair Khan vs Mst. Tabassum Khan and others2024 SCP 157, 2024 SCMR 1218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-19
  court auctionexecution of decreesetting aside saleOrder XXI Rule 84Order XXI Rule 90deposit of 20 percentmaterial irregularitypreliminary decree
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against an order of the High Court, which upheld the dismissal of his objections to a court auction report in execution proceedings. The petitioner had filed objections under Order XXI Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against an auction report alleging fraud and mala fides, but failed to deposit 20% of the sale proceeds as directed by the execution court under the second proviso to Order XXI Rule 90 CPC. The core legal question was whether an owner/legal heir can challenge an auction sale under Order XXI Rule 84 CPC or if such objections fall under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC requiring a mandatory deposit. The Supreme Court held that Order XXI Rule 84 CPC applies to the duties of a purchaser and does not grant owners/legal heirs a right to file objections against auction sales. The Court ruled that objections alleging irregularity or fraud fall under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC, which mandatorily requires the applicant to deposit the amount directed by the court (up to 20%). Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an owner or legal heir challenge a public auction sale under Order XXI Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether objections alleging fraud or irregularity in conducting a court auction must be treated under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 rather than Rule 84?
  • Is compliance with the court direction to deposit up to twenty percent of the sum realized at an auction sale mandatory under the second proviso to Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Sheikh vs Federal Ombudsman etc2024 LHC 3259 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-21Read full judgment →
• Tariq Muhammad vs The Federal Public Service Commission and others2024 IHC 110, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 283, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1546 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-27
  Section Officers Promotional Examinationeligibility criteriamaterial misrepresentationdepartmental permission certificateservice reinstatementpublic service commissionconcealment of facts
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises under Section 7(3)(d) of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977, challenging the rejection of the appellant's candidature for the Section Officers Promotional Examination, 2016 (SOPE-2016). The core legal question is whether the appellant possessed the requisite eight years of regular service at the time of application and whether the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) was justified in rejecting his candidature due to his prior dismissal from service and subsequent concealment of this fact. The Court held that the appeal is devoid of merit and dismissed it. The ratio is that the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria at the time of application because he had been dismissed from service in 2012 and was not reinstated until 2017, meaning he lacked the mandatory eight years of continuous service. Furthermore, the appellant's failure to disclose his dismissal in his application constituted a material misrepresentation. The key principle laid down is that eligibility for competitive examinations is determined based on the candidate's status at the time of application, and material concealment of service history justifies the rejection of candidature.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate's subsequent reinstatement in service retrospectively satisfy the eligibility criteria for a competitive examination if the candidate lacked the required length of service at the time of application?
  • Can the Federal Public Service Commission reject a candidate's application for concealing material facts regarding their employment history?
  • Is a candidate eligible for a promotional examination if they were dismissed from service during the period required to calculate the mandatory length of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood vs Tahir Farooq2024 LHC 2425, 2025 PLJ Lahore 346 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood etc vs Fateh Muhammad etc2024 LHC 6077, 2025 PLD Lahore 491 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-11Read full judgment →
• Tariq Irshad son of Irshad Ellahi and others vs The State and others2024 SHC 830 · Sindh High Court
  forfeiture of assetsnarcotics smugglingjurisdiction of special courtControl of Narcotic Substances ActPrevention of Smuggling Actproceeds of crimemaintainability of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a forfeiture order passed by the Special Judge (Anti-Smuggling) regarding properties allegedly acquired through narcotics smuggling under the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977. The core legal question was whether the Anti-Narcotics Force could initiate forfeiture proceedings under the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977, for assets allegedly derived from narcotics smuggling after the enactment of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and whether the evidence sufficiently established the nexus between the alleged smuggling and the property. The Court held that after the enactment of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, proceedings for forfeiting assets derived from narcotics smuggling must be conducted exclusively under that Act, rendering proceedings under the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977, without jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court found the prosecution failed to establish the necessary link between the alleged smuggling and the property acquisition. Consequently, the forfeiture order was set aside, and the appeal by the Anti-Narcotics Force was dismissed for lack of maintainability. The principle established is that the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, occupies the field for narcotics-related asset forfeiture, ousting the jurisdiction of the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977.

  Questions settled

  • Can proceedings for the forfeiture of assets allegedly acquired through narcotics smuggling be initiated under the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977, after the enactment of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is the Anti-Narcotics Force considered an aggrieved person under section 43 of the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977, to maintain an appeal against the dismissal of information?
  • Does the Special Judge appointed under the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977, possess jurisdiction to order the forfeiture of assets derived from narcotics smuggling?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Hussain vs Ghulam Abbas Sangi and others2024 YLR 2795 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-09Read full judgment →
• Tanvir Sarfraz Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Director Legal, Islamabad and others2024 SCP 349, 2025 SCMR 98 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-02
  inheritanceshariahconsent statementfemale heirsfrivolous litigationmesne profitsvesting of estate
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose from a dispute over the estate of a deceased Muslim, Sarfraz Ahmad Khan, who passed away in 2010 leaving behind a widow, five sons, and five daughters. The petitioner, one of the sons, had initially signed a 'Consent/Joint Statement' agreeing to evaluate the deceased's house in Rawalpindi and pay the other legal heirs their respective Shariah shares. However, the petitioner subsequently resiled from this commitment and challenged the consent statement, claiming he did not understand what he was signing despite his counsel being present. He also filed a partition suit eleven years after the father's death, shortly after his sisters demanded their inheritance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the property of a deceased Muslim vests in the legal heirs immediately upon death. The Court condemned the practice of using frivolous pending litigation to deprive vulnerable heirs, particularly females, of their inheritance, and dismissed the petition with costs of three hundred thousand rupees, while also declaring the respondents' right to claim mesne profits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the property of a deceased Muslim vest in his legal heirs immediately upon his death?
  • Can a party resile from a signed consent statement on the ground of not understanding it if they are literate and their counsel was present?
  • Does the subsequent filing of a partition suit by one heir exclude other legal heirs from receiving their inheritance shares?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer and another vs The State2024 PCRLJ 534 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-15
  narcoticssafe custodysafe transmissionMalkhana Inchargesecret cavitiespassenger knowledgeacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed before the Balochistan High Court challenging the appellants' conviction and life imprisonment sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, passed by the Special Judge CNS, Zhob. The prosecution alleged that 10 kilograms of charas and 800 grams of opium were recovered from secret cavities of a car in which the appellants were travelling. On review of the evidence, the High Court observed that the Seizing Officer's testimony was silent on the extraction of samples and the arrival of the Investigating Officer. Crucially, the Malkhana Incharge was not produced to establish safe custody, and the constable who transported the samples failed to state from whom he received and to whom he returned the parcels. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove that the passengers had knowledge of the narcotics hidden in the vehicle's secret cavities. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to examine the Malkhana Incharge to prove the safe custody of recovered narcotics?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be sustained if the chain of custody and transmission of samples to the laboratory is incomplete or doubtful?
  • Whether passengers in a vehicle can be held liable for narcotics recovered from secret cavities of the vehicle without proof of conscious possession or knowledge?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Ahmed vs Imtiaz Anwar2024 LHC 5198, 2025 PLD Lahore 486 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-06Read full judgment →
• Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited vs Securities and Exchange Commission2024 CLD 740 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2024-02-13Read full judgment →
• Tameer Ali vs The State2024 SHC 1070 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-30
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryfirearm injurytentative assessmentpolice encounter
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court by the applicant Tameer Ali seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 126 of 2024 registered at Police Station Matli for offences including sections 324, 353, 427, 147, 148, 149, 109, and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the absence of a Medical Legal Certificate for the alleged firearm injury and lack of corroborative transport inspection reports concerning the alleged damage to the police vehicle. The court held that the case calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where essential corroborative evidence such as an MLC or expert vehicle damage report is missing to support specific grievous allegations, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the medical legal certificate supporting the alleged firearm injury is absent from the record?
  • Does the lack of a transport inspection report regarding damage to a police vehicle make a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires tentative assessment of evidence regarding injury at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs Commissioner Inland Revenue Mirpur, and another2024 PLJ AJ&K 150 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
• Talha Samoo S/O Ghulam Nabi vs The State2024 SHC 806 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-12
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausefurther inquirycivil disputecriminal breach of trustmoney launderingrule of consistencybail as a rule
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Talha Samoo, in FIR No. 08/2023 registered at FIA ACC Karachi for offenses under Sections 406, 419, 420, 468, 471, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given that the dispute is civil in nature, the offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the rule of consistency applies with co-accused. The Sindh High Court held that the dispute primarily appears to be a civil transaction regarding property dealings, the offenses do not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C., and the case warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The court laid down the principle that bail in offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule and refusal an exception, criminal proceedings cannot be used for the recovery of money in civil disputes, and the lesser punishment provided by statute is to be considered during bail matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil and business dispute can be converted into a criminal prosecution for the recovery of money through bail proceedings?
  • Does an offense carrying a maximum sentence of ten years where the statute uses the word 'may' fall strictly within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the purpose of bail?
  • Whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted bail by the trial court?
  • Does the mere pendency of other criminal cases without a conviction serve as an absolute bar to the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Tajjala Rathore and 2 others vs Registrar University of Health Sciences, Khayaban-e-Jamia Punjab Lahore and 2 others2024 MLD 1586 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-04-30Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad Afridi and others vs The Collector of Customs2024 PTD (Trib.) 705 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2022-03-12Read full judgment →
• Taisei Corporation Tokyo Japan thr. its Attorney vs A.M. Construction2024 SCP 85, 2024 CLD 531, 2024 SCMR 640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-28
  foreign arbitral awardarbitration agreementretrospective applicationRecognition and Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement and Foreign Award Act 2011Arbitration Act 1940New York Conventionpro-enforcement biasseat of arbitrationsubject matter jurisdictionres judicata18th Amendmentinternational arbitrationdomestic arbitrationpublic policy
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether an arbitral award made in a Contracting State, pursuant to an arbitration agreement governed by Pakistani law, constitutes a "foreign arbitral award" under the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement and Foreign Award Act 2011, and if the Act applies retrospectively to awards from proceedings commenced before its enactment. The Court held that an award made in a Contracting State is a "foreign arbitral award" under the 2011 Act, adopting a pure "territorial approach" where the seat of arbitration is the sole criterion, rendering the governing law of the contract or arbitration agreement irrelevant. Furthermore, the 2011 Act applies retrospectively to foreign arbitral awards made on or after July 14, 2005, thereby extinguishing any vested right to challenge such awards under the Arbitration Act 1940. The Court emphasized the "pro-enforcement bias" of the New York Convention, which the 2011 Act implements, limiting grounds for refusing enforcement and precluding examination of an award's merits or alleged misapplication of law.

  Read full judgment →
• Taimoor Ali vs Messrs Continental Biscuits Ltd. through Factory Manager2024 PLC 287 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-30
  trans-provincial establishmentlabor court jurisdictionNational Industrial Relations Commissiongrievance applicationIndustrial Relations Act 2012constitutional petitionservice termination
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the judgment of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (SLAT), which had directed the return of the petitioner's grievance application for presentation before the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The petitioner, a former employee of the respondent factory, had initially approached the Sindh Labour Court (SLC) regarding his dismissal. The core legal question was whether the respondent factory constituted a trans-provincial establishment, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of provincial labor courts in favor of the NIRC under federal law. The High Court upheld the SLAT's decision, affirming that once an establishment is determined to be trans-provincial, the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 applies, overriding provincial legislation pursuant to Article 143 of the Constitution. The Court held that the SLC lacked jurisdiction to entertain the grievance. Consequently, the High Court directed the SLC to transmit the application to the Registrar of the NIRC for adjudication on merits, emphasizing that provincial labor laws do not extend to trans-provincial entities.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 override provincial industrial relations laws for trans-provincial establishments?
  • Does a provincial labor court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a grievance application against a trans-provincial establishment?
  • What is the legal definition of a trans-provincial establishment under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Sadiq vs Faisal Ali, etc.2024 SCP 48, 2024 SCMR 775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-29
  electionsnomination papersproclaimed offenderdisqualificationfundamental rightsright to contest electionsenfranchisementElections Act 2017
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses the legality of rejecting a candidate's nomination papers for the National Assembly on the ground of being a 'proclaimed offender'. The core legal questions involved whether a returning officer or court can disqualify a candidate without express statutory backing and what constitutes a proclaimed offender under the law. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of formal proceedings and an order under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an individual cannot be treated as a proclaimed offender. Furthermore, neither the Constitution nor the Elections Act 2017 provides for the disqualification of a proclaimed offender from contesting elections, and authorities cannot create additional disqualifications without express legislative provision. The Court laid down the key principle that electoral laws must be interpreted in favour of enfranchisement rather than disenfranchisement, upholding the constitutional rights of citizens to vote and contest elections freely.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate's nomination paper be rejected on the ground of being a proclaimed offender without formal proceedings under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Do Returning Officers or courts have the power to create additional disqualifications for candidates without express backing in the Constitution or statute?
  • Does the status of being a proclaimed offender in a criminal case affect a person's civil right to contest an election under the Elections Act 2017?
  • How must electoral laws be interpreted regarding the enfranchisement versus disenfranchisement of voters and candidates?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mehdi Imtiaz Ahmad Warraich vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Home Department etc2024 LHC 2615, 2025 PLD Lahore 112 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-30Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mehboob Gilani vs Government of Azad Jammu And Kashmir2024 PLJ AJ&K 34 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Taha Bin Abu Talha vs Ahsaan Yousuf2024 SHC 1422 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-10Read full judgment →
• Tafazzal Abbas, etc vs Saif-ur-Rehman, etc2024 LHC 4564 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-16Read full judgment →
• Tabinda Khalique vs Federation of Pakistan through Chief Election2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 94 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service tribunalcompulsory retirementmisconductdepartmental inquirynatural justicediscriminationcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 was filed by the appellant challenging an order of compulsory retirement resulting from disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct and nepotism in government recruitment. The core legal questions involved whether a de novo inquiry was conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice, whether the appellant was discriminated against compared to senior authorities, and whether an inquiry conducted via a questionnaire fulfills the legal requirements of a regular departmental inquiry. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the departmental inquiry was vitiated due to failure to supply essential documents, improper cross-examination by a Departmental Representative, and reliance on questionnaire-based procedures and anonymous complaints. The Tribunal further held that penalizing a junior board member while letting the appointing authority go unpunished constituted clear discrimination violating Article 25 of the Constitution. The impugned penalty was consequently set aside and the appellant was reinstated with back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a departmental inquiry conducted primarily through a questionnaire satisfies the legal requirements of a regular inquiry under the relevant disciplinary rules?
  • Does the failure of the department to supply requested relevant documents to the accused employee prejudice the right of defense and vitiate the inquiry proceedings?
  • Whether selective penalization of a junior member of a selection board while exonerating the appointing authority and other senior functionaries constitutes illegal discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can anonymous and unverified complaints form the lawful basis of disciplinary action against a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Syeda Rubina Shahid vs Syed Shahrukh Abbas Zaidi & Others2024 SHC 886, 2025 MLD 544 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Zawar Raza vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, etc.2024 LHC 2324 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Zakir Hussain Shah vs Mst. Khatoon Bibi and 4 others2024 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 19 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-02-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Zain Muntazar Mehdi vs Mst. Sara Naqvi etc2024 LHC 2206, 2024 CLC 1580 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Zaheer Hussain Naqvi vs Civil Judge, West Islamabad and others2024 MLD 1527 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Zafar Ali Shah vs The Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary2024 PLC (C.S.) 267 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-17
  quo warrantoout of cadre postingown pay and scalerecruitment rulesterms and conditions of serviceservice tribunal jurisdictionpublic interest litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the notifications promoting and posting respondent No.3 to the post of Senior Headmaster and subsequently as District Education Officer (Primary) on an additional charge basis, arguing it violated recruitment rules and Supreme Court precedents against out-of-cadre postings and 'Own Pay and Scale' (OPS) assignments. The court examined whether a writ of quo warranto is maintainable and whether respondent No.3 met the qualifications and cadre requirements under the relevant recruitment rules. Holding that the appointment of respondent No.3 to the administrative posts was contrary to the recruitment rules and made without lawful authority, the court allowed the petition. It directed the Chief Secretary of Sindh to ensure compliance with Supreme Court judgments regarding transfers and postings and to fix responsibility on the delinquents responsible for the unlawful postings.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan bar the High Court from entertaining a petition in service matters under Article 199?
  • Can a civil servant be appointed or posted to a higher post on an 'Own Pay and Scale' (OPS) or additional charge basis in violation of recruitment rules?
  • Is a writ of quo warranto available to challenge the holding of a public office by a person without legal warrant?
  • Do appointments and promotions made outside the prescribed administrative cadres and recruitment rules carry any legal sanction?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Waqar-ul-Hassan Shah Burkhari and others vs Small Business2024 IHC 182, 2024 CLD 1481 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Wajahat Hussain Zaidi and another vs United Bank Limited2024 CLD 380 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Wajahat Hussain Shah vs Election Commission of Pakistan and 62024 LHC 288 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Tazeeb Abbas and others vs Bashir Ahmed and others2024 YLR 926 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Talib Hussain Shah vs Syed Abid Hussain Shah and others2024 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 153 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-10-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Sibt Hassan vs Saba Batool etc.2024 LHC 572, 2024 PLJ Lahore 273, 2025 PLD Lahore 359 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Shouzab Imran Kazmi vs Syeda Iffat Bukhari And 2 Others2024 LHC 5108, 2025 PLD Lahore 18 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Shehanshah Raza Hussain Rizvi vs Tariq Nawaz Khan, etc2024 LHC 4339, 2024 PLJ Lahore 835, 2025 YLR 575 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-16Read full judgment →
• Syed Sharafat Hussain vs Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh2024 SHC 1236 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Shahzad Ali Shah vs The State & others2024 SHC 456 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-13
  registration of FIREx-Officio Justice of Peacecognizable offencecriminal miscellaneous applicationinfructuous petitionSection 22-A Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the applicant, Syed Shahzad Ali Shah, challenging an order passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood)/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Sukkur. The impugned order had allowed an application under Section 22-A & B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, directing the registration of an FIR against the applicant based on allegations of injury. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the challenge to the lower court's order remained maintainable following the subsequent registration of the FIR. During the proceedings, it was brought to the Court's attention that the police had already registered FIR No. 107 of 2024 against the applicant for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on the medical certificate provided. Consequently, the Court held that the primary grievance regarding the non-registration of the FIR had been rendered infructuous by the actual registration of the case. The Court disposed of the application, recalling its earlier interim order, and directed the aggrieved party to pursue appropriate legal remedies available under the law regarding the registered FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of an FIR render a pending application under Section 22-A & B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 infructuous?
  • Can a High Court interfere with an order of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace once the underlying investigation has commenced through the registration of an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Saulat Hussain Naqvi vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1056, 2024 PLJ Karachi 156, 2025 CLD 23 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Saqib Ali and others vs The State2024 SHC 1028 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-07
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausedelayed FIRfurther inquirycriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous application filed by the applicants seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No.198 of 2024 registered at Police Station Sharif Abad, Karachi, for offences under Sections 289, 380, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the delay in lodging the FIR, the non-prohibitory nature of the alleged offences, and the absence of recoveries. The Court held that since the offences carried a maximum punishment not exceeding the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the prosecution failed to provide a plausible explanation for the inordinate delay in reporting the crime, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2). Consequently, the High Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants, laying down the principle that bail should generally be granted in non-prohibitory offences where further inquiry is warranted and no plausible justification for delayed reporting is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR makes a criminal case one of further inquiry for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the charged offences fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed where recoveries of alleged stolen articles have not been effected by the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Samar Hassan Shah vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2024 MLD 343 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Sakhawat Hussain vs The State and another2024 SCP 136, 2024 SCMR 1103, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-21
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirybank fraudbeneficiary liabilitypersonal libertycheating and forgerycriminal breach of trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arose from the Lahore High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's post-arrest bail application in a bank scam case registered under Sections 34, 109, 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The central legal question was whether an alleged beneficiary receiving funds in a separate bank account is entitled to bail when the account holder who transferred the embezzled funds was not nominated as an accused in the FIR. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted post-arrest bail. The Court held that mere receipt of funds in a bank account without substantive material linking the petitioner to the scam does not establish guilt at the pre-trial stage. The failure to nominate the transferring account holder rendered the petitioner's criminal liability a matter of further inquiry. The Court reaffirmed that personal liberty cannot be curtailed on bald allegations without progress in trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere receipt of alleged proceeds of a fraud in a bank account justify pre-trial detention without substantive material establishing a conspiracy?
  • Is a case made out for further inquiry when an alleged beneficiary is nominated in an FIR but the primary account holder who transferred the funds is not implicated?
  • Can personal liberty be curtailed during trial solely on the basis of bald allegations in a financial fraud prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Raheel Ahmed vs Mst. Syeda Zona Naqvi and others2024 SCP 256, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 902 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-26
  family litigationconstitutional jurisdictionArticle 199right of appealfactual findingsFamily Courts Act 1964judicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges a High Court order that dismissed a constitutional petition regarding a family dispute involving the dissolution of marriage, maintenance, and recovery of dowry articles. The core legal question concerns the scope of the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 in reviewing factual findings of Family Courts and Appellate Courts where no further statutory right of appeal exists. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court cannot act as a court of appeal to re-evaluate factual controversies. The Court affirmed that the legislature intentionally limited family litigation to two tiers to ensure definitive closure. It established that constitutional jurisdiction is not a substitute for appeal or revision and is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or glaring, patent legal violations. High Courts must refrain from interfering with factual findings of lower fora, as the right of appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be assumed where the law provides none.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to re-evaluate factual findings of Family Courts in the absence of a statutory right of appeal?
  • Is the decision of an appellate court in a family matter final and conclusive regarding factual determinations?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to act as a court of appeal against decisions of Family Courts under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Qurban Ali Shah and others vs The State2024 SHC 438, 2025 YLR 246 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-18
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymedical evidence discrepancybenefit of doubtrecovery of weaponsSindh Arms Actattempted murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns post-arrest bail applications filed by the accused in connection with FIRs registered under sections 324, 506(2), 337-A(i), 337-F(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 25 of the Sindh Arms Act 2013. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail given the apparent discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, finding that the case required further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The holding was based on significant contradictions between the FIR and the medico-legal certificates regarding the number of injuries and the date of the incident, as well as the failure to associate independent witnesses during the recovery of alleged crime weapons. The Court affirmed the principle that the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused at the bail stage where the prosecution’s narrative is inconsistent with medical evidence and where the accused's continued detention serves no useful purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
  • Does a discrepancy between eyewitness testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality during the recovery of weapons a ground for granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Qamber Ali Shah vs Province of Sindh and others2024 SCP 140, 2024 SCMR 1123, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-02
  FIR registrationJustice of PeaceSection 22-A Cr.P.C.Cognizable offencePolice dutyHigh Court jurisdictionSection 561-A Cr.P.C.InvestigationFalse FIRAbduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Petition challenged a High Court order that set aside a Justice of Peace's direction for FIR registration concerning an alleged abduction. The core legal questions revolved around the scope of a Justice of Peace's powers under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. in directing FIR registration, the police's duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C., and the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. to interfere with such orders. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. The Court held that a Justice of Peace's function under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. is limited to ensuring a cognizable offense is disclosed for FIR registration, not to conduct a meticulous scrutiny or render findings on merits. The police are statutorily obligated to register an FIR for a cognizable offense under Section 154 Cr.P.C. without holding a prior inquiry into its correctness or falsity. The High Court erred by assuming the role of an investigator and making observations on the merits, which is beyond its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that the check against false FIRs lies in punishment under Section 182 PPC, not in refusing registration.

  Read full judgment →
• Syed Pervaiz Hussain and another vs Zikr-ur-Rehman and others2024 SCP 241, 2024 SCMR 1683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-15
  unregistered power of attorneypresumption of authenticitynotary publicattesting witnessesburden of proofcancellation of conveyance deedconcurrent findingsbona fide purchaser
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from concurrent findings of three courts decreeing a suit for cancellation of a registered conveyance deed and restoration of title. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was the original allottee and registered lessee of a residential plot. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners claimed title through a registered conveyance deed executed pursuant to an unregistered general power-of-attorney and a subsequent sub-power-of-attorney. The core legal questions pertained to the proof and validity of an unregistered power-of-attorney, the applicability of the presumption under Article 95 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the burden of proof, and the validity of transfers executed on the basis of a fraudulent instrument. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent judgments. The Court held that where the execution of an unregistered power-of-attorney is denied, the burden lies on the beneficiary to prove it under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Without examining the attesting witnesses, the notary public, or the attorneys, no presumption of authenticity arises, and any subsequent conveyance deeds derived from a forged foundational document are legally void.

  Questions settled

  • Does the legal presumption under Article 95 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 apply to an unregistered power-of-attorney when its execution is expressly denied and the notary public or attesting witnesses are not examined?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the validity and execution of an unregistered power-of-attorney when it is challenged as forged?
  • Can a valid right, title, or interest in immovable property be conveyed under a sale deed executed on the basis of a forged or legally invalid power-of-attorney?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Noor-ul-Hadi Shah vs Government of Punjab, etc2024 LHC 4331 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Noor Hussain Shah vs Syeda Nargis Bibi and others.2024 SC AJK 8 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-02-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Nazir Agha and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2024 YLR 1735 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-12-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Muzaffar Ahmed Ashraf and others vs Anwar Ali Janwri and Others2024 SHC 114 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Mujahid Hussain Shah vs District Judge, Muzaffarabad and 12 others2024 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 5 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-03-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Zahir and others vs Mrs. Shahnaz Akhtar and others2024 PLD Balochistan 106, 2024 CLD 900, 2024 PLJ Quetta 102 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Tasleem Shah vs Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony Islamabad and others2024 MLD 1863 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Qasim vs Syed Bashir Ahmed2024 MLD 1127 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Kazim, Advocate and another vs Rub Razi Co-Operative2024 YLR 1668 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-05Read full judgment →
• Town Administration and another vs Mohammad Khalid and others2024 SCP 295, 2024 PLC 314, 2024 SCMR 1852, 2024 PLJ SC 894 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-28
  oral terminationpermanent workmanlabour lawscondonation of delaylimitationindustrial disputereinstatementstanding orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court order upholding the reinstatement of two employees. The core legal questions addressed whether oral termination of service is lawful, whether employees engaged for long periods against permanent posts attain permanent status, and whether government departments are entitled to preferential treatment regarding the condonation of delay. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that oral termination is illegal and contrary to labour laws. It affirmed that employees who serve beyond nine months against permanent posts attain the status of permanent workmen. The Court established that employers must issue written termination orders providing explicit reasons. Furthermore, it laid down the principle that government departments are not entitled to special clemency or preferential treatment regarding the law of limitation; they are subject to the same standards of vigilance as ordinary litigants. The Court emphasized that the nature of the work, rather than the mere duration of employment, is the primary factor in determining the classification of a workman under the applicable Standing Orders.

  Questions settled

  • Is an oral termination of an employee's service valid under labour laws?
  • Does an employee engaged for more than nine months against a permanent post automatically attain the status of a permanent workman?
  • Are government departments entitled to preferential treatment or special clemency regarding the condonation of delay in filing appeals?
  • What is the primary factor for determining whether a workman is a permanent workman under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Iqbal vs Chief Sect: and Others2024 SHC 614 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Iqbal Shah vs The State2024 PCRLJ 444 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-20
  circumstantial evidencelast-seen evidencemitigating circumstancescommutation of death sentencesodomy and murderjoint recoverychance witnesscapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for the abduction, sodomy, murder, and disappearance of evidence regarding a nine-year-old boy, sentencing him to death under section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside sentences under sections 377 and 201. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial evidence, last-seen testimony by independent chance witnesses, and the admissibility of recoveries made pursuant to the appellant's information under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Sindh High Court held that the circumstantial evidence, including reliable last-seen evidence and the subsequent discovery of the victim's personal effects exclusively known to and pointed out by the appellant, formed an unbroken chain proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, considering that the case rested on circumstantial evidence and that the appellant was a young man of twenty-three years at the time of the incident, the court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life under section 302(b) and set aside the separate conviction under section 201 as erroneous in law. The key principle laid down is that where a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence, the youth of the offender and the nature of circumstantial proof serve as mitigating circumstances justifying the substitution of a death sentence with imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution can establish guilt solely through circumstantial evidence and last-seen testimony in a murder case?
  • Does the discovery of a deceased's personal effects upon the pointing out of an accused in custody fall within the scope of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Whether the youthful age of an offender and the reliance on circumstantial evidence constitute valid mitigating circumstances for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Can an accused be simultaneously convicted of murder under section 302 and causing the disappearance of evidence under section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 under the facts of the same transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ghous vs Mst. Najma and 7 others2024 CLC 900 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Asif Raees vs The State2024 PCRLJ 284 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-29
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtidentification paradeeye-witness testimonyforensic evidenceillegal arms possessionanti-terrorismfalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court for murder and illegal arms possession. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of delayed eye-witness testimony and forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon to the crime scene. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt. The court found the eye-witnesses unreliable due to an unexplained three-month delay in reporting, the absence of prior descriptions, and procedural flaws in the identification parade. Furthermore, the court ruled that the alleged confession to law enforcement was inadmissible, and the forensic match was suspicious, suggesting the weapon was planted. The court emphasized that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, with the court reinforcing the principle that the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of three months in recording the statement of an eye-witness render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is a confession made before a police officer or a ranger's official admissible in evidence?
  • Does the failure to provide a prior description or hulia of the accused by an eye-witness undermine the validity of a subsequent identification parade?
  • Can an accused be acquitted if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt regarding their guilt?
  Read full judgment →