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.

• Syed Muhammad Ali vs The State and another2024 LHC 1622, 2024 MLD 1363 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-19
  post-arrest baildishonour of chequeSection 489-F PPCfurther inquiryprohibitory clauseproclaimed offenderadvance punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a case registered under Section 489-F PPC involving a dishonoured cheque of Rs.3,200,000/-. The core legal questions before the Lahore High Court were whether Section 489-F PPC is attracted when the record fails to substantiate the underlying loan or obligation, and whether post-arrest bail can be granted despite alleged abscondance. The High Court held that the mere issuance or dishonour of a cheque is insufficient to attract Section 489-F PPC without evidence establishing an underlying obligation or loan, bringing the matter within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the maximum punishment for Section 489-F PPC does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., where grant of bail is the rule. The Court also held that where a case requires further inquiry, bail is a right that cannot be withheld as an advance punishment or due to alleged abscondance. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Is the mere issuance and dishonour of a cheque sufficient to invoke Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of an underlying loan or obligation?
  • Can post-arrest bail be withheld as advance punishment where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  • Can an accused person be treated as a proclaimed offender if arrested prior to the expiration of the statutory 30-day period stated in the proclamation?
  • Whether an accused person is entitled to post-arrest bail as a matter of right when the case requires further inquiry despite allegations of abscondance?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ali Raza Shah vs Govt. of Punjab, etc2024 LHC 6088 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ali Bokhari vs Federation of Pakistan etc2024 IHC 176, 2025 PLD Islamabad 48, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Monis Raza & others vs Mst. Asia Bano & others2024 LHC 3849, 2025 CLC 168 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Mohsin Mahzar vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 128 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Mehmood Ali, Amjad Yousuf vs Amjad Yousuf, Syed Mehmood Ali2024 SHC 1050, 2024 PLJ Karachi 161 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Matiullah Agha vs Haji Muhammad Hussain alias Haji Muhammad2024 PLJ Quetta 97, 2025 PLD Balochistan 28, 2025 CLD 441 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-10-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Masood Hussain Shah and others vs National Accountability Bureau2024 PHC 266 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Mansoor Ali Shah vs The State2024 MLD 915 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-21
  criminal appealoffshoot caseacquittalhostile witnessrecovery evidenceillicit armsdoubtful recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act 2013, for which he was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, while in custody for a separate murder case, led police to recover an illicit pistol. The core legal question is whether the appellant is entitled to acquittal in this arms recovery case, given that the recovery evidence was dubious and the case was an offshoot of a main murder case in which the appellant had already been acquitted. The Court found that the primary recovery witness turned hostile, denying the recovery process, thereby rendering the recovery highly doubtful. Furthermore, the Court held that where an accused has been acquitted in a main case, they are entitled to acquittal in a secondary case that is an offshoot of the main proceedings. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing that the collapse of the main case necessitates the acquittal of the accused in related offshoot matters.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal in a secondary case if they have already been acquitted in the main case from which the secondary case originated?
  • Does the testimony of a hostile witness regarding the recovery of an illicit weapon render the recovery evidence doubtful?
  • Can a conviction be sustained in an offshoot case when the evidence supporting the recovery of the weapon is unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mansoob Ahmed Bukhari and 28 others vs Federation of Pakistan2024 YLR 713 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Mahmood Jaffar Zaidi vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1266 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Lehazullah vs Housing Director through Housing Director General and another2024 PHC 284, 2025 PLD Peshawar 97 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Khan alias Malangi vs The State2024 YLR 1172 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-17
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesice recoverydirectory nature of rulesforensic science laboratory reportprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition seeks post-arrest bail for the petitioner, Syed Khan alias Malangi, who was charged under section 11(b) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, following the recovery of 527 grams of 'ice' from his possession. The core legal question was whether the delay in dispatching the narcotic sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory beyond the 72-hour period prescribed by Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, entitled the petitioner to the grant of bail. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, as the record prima facie connected him to the offence and the punishment fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in 'Gull Din v. The State', the Court laid down the principle that Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, is directory in nature, and its non-compliance does not constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is the requirement to dispatch narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory within 72 hours under Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, mandatory or directory?
  • Does the non-compliance with the 72-hour sample dispatch rule automatically entitle an accused to bail in narcotic cases?
  • Does the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics, supported by a positive chemical analysis report, satisfy the prima facie connection required to deny bail under the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Kazim Abbas Rizvi and others vs The State2024 PCRLJ 880 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-24
  in-court identificationidentification paradeballistic reportforensic evidencebenefit of doubttarget killingenhancement of sentenceanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal appeals and a criminal revision were filed challenging a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Karachi, which convicted two appellants under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act 2013. The case arose from a targeted armed attack resulting in a fatality and injury. The High Court reviewed the evidence against both appellants separately. As to appellant Nauman, the Court found no physical recovery or corroborative material, and held that in-court identification without a prior identification parade was insufficient; he was acquitted on benefit of doubt. Regarding appellant Syed Kazim Abbas, the Court found strong corroboration including matching forensic ballistic reports, positive fingerprint analysis on the crime weapon, and credible identification by an independent eyewitness in a properly conducted identification parade. Consequently, the High Court upheld Kazim's conviction and life imprisonment, finding the lesser sentence justified by mitigating circumstances, and dismissed the complainant's revision for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Is in-court identification without a prior test identification parade sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of corroborative evidence?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on matching ballistic evidence, positive fingerprint analysis, and credible test identification parade evidence?
  • When is the sentence of life imprisonment preferred over the death penalty in a case of target killing?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Kashif Hussain Shah and 2 others vs Ombudsperson (Mohtasib)2024 YLR 1224 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Kalam Shah & another vs Shafiq-ur-Rehman & another2024 PHC 376, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 68 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Jehanzaib and Syed Murtaza Jillani vs The State2024 SHC 1398 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-10
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceidentification paradebenefit of doubtrecovery of weaponcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants, Syed Jehanzaib and Syed Murtaza Jillani, for the murder of two individuals. The prosecution's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically 'last seen' testimony, identification parade results, and the recovery of a weapon and stolen items. The core legal questions were whether the circumstantial evidence formed an unbroken chain leading exclusively to the appellants' guilt and whether the identification parade and recoveries were legally valid. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The 'last seen' evidence was found to be tenuous, lacking independent corroboration, and inconsistent with medical evidence regarding the time of death. Furthermore, the identification parade was flawed due to the potential prior exposure of the accused to witnesses, and the recoveries were deemed unreliable due to procedural failures, including the lack of safe custody of the weapon and the failure to record statements leading to discovery. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be maintained on circumstantial evidence if the prosecution fails to establish an unbroken chain of events?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine material witnesses warrant an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is a test identification parade valid if there is a possibility that the accused were shown to the witnesses prior to the parade?
  • Does the failure to prove safe custody and transmission of a crime weapon to a ballistic expert render the recovery evidence unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Jaffar Shah and others vs Mst. Gulshan and others2024 PHC 96 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Inayat vs The State2024 YLR 913 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-21
  carnal intercoursebenefit of doubtcriminal jail appealdelay in FIRnon-examination of witnessacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the appellant's conviction under Section 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code for committing carnal intercourse. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given the inconsistencies in evidence, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, non-examination of material witnesses including the examining doctor and independent locals, and absence of corroborative seminal material. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the accused's guilt entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does the non-examination of the medical officer who initially examined the victim create a material gap in the prosecution case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Iftikhar Haider Rizvi vs Vith Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi Central and others2024 MLD 1768 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Ibn-e-Hussain and others. vs Federation of Pakistan through its2024 SCP 52 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-30
  freedom of pressjournalistsFIA noticesconstitutional petitionSupreme Court Practice and Procedure Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves proceedings before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning journalists, freedom of the press, and related notices issued by the Federal Investigation Agency. During the hearing, oral submissions were made regarding the inclusion of an attacked journalist in previous orders, requests by representative bodies such as the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists and the Press Association of the Supreme Court to file petitions, and an undertaking by the Attorney General for Pakistan that notices issued to journalists by the FIA would be deferred until after the general elections scheduled for February 8, 2024. The core legal questions revolved around the procedure for entertaining fresh constitutional petitions and addressing concerns regarding journalists. The Court ordered the inclusion of the journalist's name, granted time for counsel to submit a concise statement, adjourned the proceedings to a date post-elections, and directed that any new petitions filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution be placed before the Committee constituted under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023. The key principle laid down is the procedural handling of public interest petitions and the protection of fundamental rights of journalists during electoral periods.

  Questions settled

  • Whether notices issued to journalists by the Federal Investigation Agency can be deferred until after general elections upon an undertaking by the Attorney General?
  • How should petitions filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution be processed and placed before the appropriate authority under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023?
  • Can representative bodies of journalists become a party in ongoing proceedings concerning freedom of the press?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ibn-e-Hussain and others vs Federation of Pakistan through its2024 SCP 97 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-11
  freedom of the pressfundamental rightsFIA investigationcyber crimesJoint Investigation Teamultra viresjudicial reputation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the investigation into crimes against journalists and the subsequent actions taken by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). The Supreme Court examined reports submitted by the police and the FIA regarding attacks on journalists, finding them unsatisfactory. The Court emphasized that the intimidation of the press is intolerable, affirming that freedom of the press is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution, essential for protecting other rights. The Court scrutinized notices issued by the FIA under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and an FIR registered under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, noting that these actions, which referenced the judiciary without its involvement or complaint, misled the public and damaged the reputation of the Court. The Court held that investigations must be thorough to avoid the implication of facilitating perpetrators. Furthermore, the Court questioned the legality of including intelligence agency members in Joint Investigation Teams under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Investigation Rules, 2018, suggesting potential conflict with the parent statute, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016.

  Questions settled

  • Does the freedom of the press constitute a fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can rules framed under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, be declared ultra vires if they contradict the parent statute?
  • Does the registration of an FIR referencing the judiciary without its involvement or complaint constitute an abuse of process?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ibn-e-Hussain and others vs Federation of Pakistan through its2024 SCP 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-29
  journalists' rightsfreedom of expressionpolice investigationsuo motu jurisdictionFIA noticesjudicial criticismfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a complaint filed by several journalists regarding the abduction and attacks on media personnel and the alleged failure of law enforcement to properly investigate these incidents. The core legal questions concerned the adequacy of police investigations into crimes against journalists and the potential intimidation of media professionals through notices issued by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) regarding alleged maligning of the judiciary. The Court directed the Attorney-General to submit comprehensive reports on the status of police investigations for each specific case, emphasizing that investigating officers must be granted full access and remain unhampered. Regarding the FIA notices, the Attorney-General provided an undertaking on behalf of the Federal Government that honest criticism of judicial orders or judgments does not constitute a crime and that no coercive action or criminal registration would occur against journalists for such expression. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the power of the press is a public trust, necessitating fearless, responsible, and independent journalism, while simultaneously welcoming honest criticism of state policies and institutions.

  Questions settled

  • Does honest criticism of a judicial order or judgment constitute a criminal offense?
  • Can the Federal Government take coercive action against journalists for criticizing the judiciary?
  • Are investigating officers required to be granted unhampered access to investigate crimes against journalists?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Hassan Murtaza vs Mariya Bano Khan and others2024 LHC 6486, 2025 PLD Lahore 207 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Habib Haider Zaidi vs Syed Hussain Khursheed Bilgrami2024 SHC 244 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Furqan Ali S/O Syed Ashfaq Ali vs The State2024 SHC 716 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-02
  post-arrest baildishonest issuance of chequeprohibitory clausefinancial disputerecovery of moneycommercial transactionsecurity cheque
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application arising out of F.I.R. No. 23/2024 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Eidgah Karachi, wherein the applicant was accused of issuing a dishonored cheque amounting to Rs. 15,000,000/- in connection with a marketing business transaction. The core legal question centered on whether the offense under Section 489-F PPC falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and whether bail should be granted when the transaction involves a civil dispute over commercial dealings and security cheques. The Sindh High Court held that the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., that Section 489-F PPC is not intended to be used as a coercive mechanism for the recovery of money, and that grant of bail in non-prohibitory offenses is a rule while refusal is an exception. The Court laid down that mere issuance of a cheque and its dishonor do not constitute an offense under Section 489-F PPC unless dishonest intent at the time of issuance and fulfillment of all statutory ingredients are prima facie established, and that criminal courts should not permit the misuse of criminal machinery for debt recovery.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Can Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code be utilized as a coercive tool for the recovery of civil debts or loans?
  • What are the essential ingredients that must be established by the prosecution to constitute an offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Does the mere issuance of a cheque and its subsequent dishonor by itself constitute a criminal offense without proof of dishonest intent?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Fida Hussain Shah vs The State and another2024 SCP 238, 2024 SCMR 1622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-03
  rash and negligent drivingroad accidentstatement of accusedbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRinculpatory statementexculpatory statementcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, arose from a road accident resulting in two fatalities, leading to the petitioner's conviction under Sections 279, 427, and 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The core legal questions centered on whether the prosecution established the identity of the driver and proved 'rash and negligent driving' beyond reasonable doubt, and whether an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) can be parsed to accept only the inculpatory portion. By a 2:1 majority, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the driver's identity, as the eye-witnesses did not name the petitioner, and there was a five-day unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. Crucially, the Court reiterated that an accused's statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. must be accepted or rejected in toto; it is legally impermissible to accept only the inculpatory part while rejecting the exculpatory portion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statement of an accused recorded under Section 342 of the Cr.P.C. must be accepted or rejected in its entirety when prosecution evidence is disbelieved?
  • Can a conviction for rash and negligent driving under Sections 279 and 320 of the PPC be sustained solely on the basis of high speed on a highway without proving the driving was above the prescribed limit and negligent?
  • Does an unexplained delay of five days in lodging an FIR affect the credibility and sanctity of the prosecution's case?
  • Can a piece of prosecution evidence be used against an accused if it was not specifically put to them during their examination under Section 342 of the Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Feroze Ali vs M/s. Aurora Broadcasting Service (Pvt) Ltd and others2024 SHC 282, 2024 CLC 1190 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Faizan-e-Rasool vs The Lahore High Court, Lahore through Registrar2024 SCMR 1871 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-29
  judicial officersstudy leaveforeign scholarshipadministrative discretionservice appealmaster of lawssubordinate judiciary
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by a civil judge challenging the refusal of the Lahore High Court administration and the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal to grant him permission and study leave to pursue a Master of Laws (LLM) degree on a scholarship at a foreign university. The core legal question was whether a judicial officer's request to avail of a foreign scholarship for higher legal education could be declined without providing valid, rational reasons and whether such refusal was sustainable in the absence of a clear policy or financial outlay by the state. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that administrative discretion must be exercised fairly and reasonably, and that decisions withholding permission for study leave without citing specific valid grounds are unsustainable. The Court laid down the principle that judicial officers fulfilling prescribed criteria should generally be permitted to pursue higher education abroad on scholarships where no financial burden is placed on the state, and directed the High Court to formulate a clear, transparent policy regarding study leave.

  Questions settled

  • Whether refusal of permission for study leave to a judicial officer requires valid and communicated reasons?
  • Can a judicial officer be denied permission to avail of a foreign scholarship for an LLM degree when it involves no financial outlay by the state?
  • Whether the High Court's constitutional power to supervise subordinate courts includes the arbitrary withholding of study leave without a formulated policy?
  • Are judicial officers governed by applicable government servant leave rules when specific rules for the judicial service are silent on study leave?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Faizan e Rasool vs The Lahore High Court, Lahore through Registrar2024 PLC (C.S.) 1373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-29
  study leavejudicial officerscivil judgeLLM scholarshipadministrative discretionreasoned decisionsubordinate judiciary
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Civil Judge serving in Punjab, challenged the decision of the Lahore High Court Administration Judge and the subsequent judgment of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, which denied him permission to pursue an LLM degree in the United Kingdom on a scholarship. The respondents had advised the petitioner to obtain the degree from a local university instead, but provided no reasons for denying permission to study abroad. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the petitioner met the general criteria for study leave under the applicable civil service rules, as he had served for over ten years, sought a relevant degree, and incurred no financial cost to the government. The Court held that while the High Court has constitutional authority to supervise subordinate courts, its decisions must be fair, transparent, and reasoned. Finding no justification for the denial, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned decisions, and directed the Lahore High Court to formulate a clear, equitable, and uniform policy regarding study leave for judicial officers.

  Questions settled

  • Can the competent authority deny a judicial officer's request for study leave without providing any reasons?
  • What rules govern the study leave of judicial officers in Punjab when the Punjab Judicial Service Rules 1994 are silent on the matter?
  • Does the constitutional power of supervision and control under Article 203 of the Constitution permit arbitrary denial of study leave to subordinate judicial officers?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Faizan e Rasool vs The Lahore High Court, Lahore through its Registrar2024 LHC 1791, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1114 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-25
  service appealforeign educationmaster degree in lawjudicial officerdiscretionary powersstudy leaveservice discipline
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant service appeal challenges a letter issued by the respondent declining the appellant's representation for permission to apply for a Master's Degree in Law from a foreign university. The core legal question was whether the grant of permission for higher education abroad to a judicial officer can be claimed as a matter of right and whether the competent authority's refusal to exercise its discretion in this regard warrants interference. The court held that the grant of permission to pursue higher education from a foreign university is not a rule of thumb, but rather falls within the discretionary domain of the competent authority, which is to be exercised based on the facts and circumstances of each case, especially considering the scarcity of judicial officers and heavy pending caseloads. The key principle laid down is that higher education leave or permission cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and courts will not interfere with the discretionary refusal of such permission by the competent authority unless arbitrary or unlawful grounds are established.

  Questions settled

  • Can permission to apply for higher education from a foreign university be claimed as a matter of right by a judicial officer?
  • Is the competent authority bound to grant permission for pursuing higher studies abroad under service rules?
  • Does the refusal of a competent authority to grant permission for foreign higher education warrant interference when grounded on administrative exigencies and scarcity of judicial officers?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Faheem ul Hassan vs I.G. Punjab Police, etc.2024 LHC 1111, 2024 PLJ Lahore 404, 2024 YLR 1628 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Dur Muhamamd Shah and others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 574 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Danish Hussain Shah vs Province of Punjab and others2024 PLC (C.S.) 448 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-04
  Assistant Superintendent Jailsvision requirementglassesfundamental rightsfreedom of professionconstitutional petitionservice rulesjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged Rule 1042(c) of the Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978 and the Punjab Prisons Department Service Rules, 2010, which prescribed a vision standard of 6/6 without glasses for the post of Assistant Superintendent Jails (BS-16), arguing it was unconstitutional and discriminatory against candidates with corrected vision. The core legal question was whether the requirement of 6/6 eyesight without glasses for the post of Assistant Superintendent Jails violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution regarding the freedom of profession and trade. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that the condition of 6/6 eyesight without glasses is violative of Article 18 of the Constitution as the nature of the job does not strictly require uncorrected vision given modern technological corrections like glasses. The court laid down the principle that statutory service criteria and qualifications infringing upon fundamental rights without a rational, modern nexus to the nature of duties can be subjected to judicial review and set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the requirement of 6/6 eyesight without glasses for the post of Assistant Superintendent Jails violates Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can the High Court review service criteria and qualification rules under constitutional jurisdiction when they conflict with fundamental rights?
  • Does the nature of duties of an Assistant Superintendent Jails strictly necessitate uncorrected vision without glasses?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Baqir Raza Naqvi and two others vs The State2024 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-24
  post-arrest bailcontrol of narcotic substancescannabidiolcannabis control and regulatory authorityhashish oilfurther inquirytetrahydrocannabinol
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, relating to the alleged possession and online sale of CBD/Hemp Oil/THC. The core legal question was whether Cannabidiol (CBD) is a substance prohibited under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, or regulated under the Cannabis Control and Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2024, and whether the incomplete chemical analysis and interplay between the two statutes made the case one of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Islamabad High Court held that the absence of a quantitative assessment of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in the recovered CBD oil and the unresolved applicability between the 1997 Act and the subsequent 2024 Ordinance rendered the petitioners' case one of further inquiry. The Court laid down the principle that where the chemical nature, THC percentage, and statutory classification of a seized cannabis derivative are ambiguous, and two competing legislative frameworks apply, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail pending further determination by the laboratory and the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Cannabidiol (CBD) extracted from hemp seed falls within the definition of prohibited cannabis under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the possession of Cannabidiol (CBD) attract penal consequences of imprisonment under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 or pecuniary penalties under the Cannabis Control and Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2024?
  • Whether the absence of a quantitative assessment of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in a chemical report makes a narcotics case one of further inquiry warranting post-arrest bail?
  • How do overlapping provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the Cannabis Control and Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2024 apply to cannabis derivatives?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Bachal Shah vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 608 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Ayaz Haider vs National Bank of Pakistan and 2 others2024 YLR 2773, 2024 CLD 1373 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Ayaz Ali Shah vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 524 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
• Syed Ayaz Ali Shah vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 74 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Asif Hussain Shah, Rizwan Ahme vs Federation of Pakistan etc2024 LHC 3078 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Asghar Ali Shah, Muhammad Younas Khan vs Kaleem Arshad and others2024 SCP 33, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 463, 2024 SCMR 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-15
  service tribunalseniority disputeappellate jurisdictionconstitutional interpretationouster clauseleave to appealadministrative tribunals
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of petitions for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against judgments of Provincial Administrative Tribunals where the proviso to Article 212(2) has not been activated. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction under Article 212(3) is contingent upon the activation of the proviso to Article 212(2) through federal legislation, as previously held in the Gomal case. The Court held that Article 212(3) is a standalone constitutional provision that independently confers appellate jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court against decisions of Administrative Tribunals established under Article 212(1), regardless of whether the ouster clause in Article 212(2) has been extended to such provincial tribunals. Consequently, the Court overruled Gomal, declaring that the absence of federal legislation extending the proviso does not bar an appeal to the Supreme Court. On the merits, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, confirming that seniority is determined by the date of the selection process, thereby affirming the respondent's seniority based on his 2001 batch.

  Questions settled

  • Is the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution contingent upon the activation of the proviso to Article 212(2)?
  • Does the absence of federal legislation extending the proviso to Article 212(2) preclude an appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of a Provincial Administrative Tribunal?
  • Is seniority for judicial officers determined by the date of appointment or the date of the selection process under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Judicial Service Rules 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Asad Ali Shah vs The Chief Editor, daily Jang and others2024 IHC 94, 2024 MLD 446 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Raza Rizvi and 33 others vs Commissioner, D.G. Khan and 10 others2024 LHC 1042, 2025 CLC 866 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Muhammad vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2024 PLC (C.S.) 954 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-29
  transfer and postingconstitutional petitionexecutive domainservice matternon-existent post
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged transfer and posting orders issued by the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority (PSQCA) directing the petitioner, a Deputy Director (Finance), to report to the Standards Development Centre, Lahore. The core legal question concerned the scope of judicial interference under Article 199 of the Constitution in executive matters of postings and transfers, and whether an employee could be transferred to a post that allegedly did not exist under the departmental regulations. The Sindh High Court held that while transfers and postings are within the exclusive domain of the executive and ordinarily not amenable to constitutional jurisdiction unless vitiated by mala fide, transferring an employee to a non-existent post places them at a disadvantage regarding appointment and promotion. The court disposed of the petitions, directing the competent authority of PSQCA to ensure a proper posting is given to the petitioner in accordance with his appointment and promotion at Lahore. The key principle laid down is that executive transfers must align with the availability of posts and departmental rules so as not to prejudice the employee's service rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether transfer and posting of government officials can be interfered with under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does a government employee have a vested right to claim posting or transfer to a particular place of choice?
  • Can an employee be transferred to a post that does not exist under the applicable service regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Ahmed Shah vs Syed Shoukat Hussain Shah & Others2024 SCP 413, 2025 SCMR 361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-16
  consent orderreview applicationpresumption of correctnessjudicial proceedingslimitation periodcivil revisionpartition of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal against a Sindh High Court order that dismissed a review application regarding a previous consent order. The core legal question was whether a party can challenge a judicial order recorded as a consent order through a review application without providing an affidavit or evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness attached to court proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly dismissed the review application. The Court reasoned that judicial proceedings and orders recorded in open court carry a presumption of sanctity and correctness. A party cannot simply recoil from a consent order by filing a review application without demonstrating an error apparent on the face of the record or providing formal evidence, such as an affidavit from the counsel, to substantiate the claim that consent was never given. Furthermore, the review application was time-barred. The key principle laid down is that consent orders are binding, and a party seeking to challenge them must provide concrete evidence to overcome the presumption of judicial correctness, rather than making unsubstantiated allegations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge a consent order through a review application without providing an affidavit to rebut the presumption of correctness?
  • Does a judicial order recorded in open court carry a presumption of sanctity that requires formal evidence to challenge?
  • Is a review application filed after the limitation period without an application for condonation of delay maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahsan Abbas, etc vs Government of the Punjab, etc2024 LHC 5390 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmad vs The State and others2024 PHC 16 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Afsar alias Rizvi vs The State2024 YLR 947 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-24
  retracted judicial confessionbenefit of the doubtmurderanti-terrorismcriminal appealcorroborationconfessional statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for murder under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Sections 6(1)(b), 7(1)(a), and 7(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, resulting in life imprisonment and fines. The core legal question was whether the appellant's conviction could be sustained solely on the basis of a retracted judicial confession made after prolonged detention in law enforcement custody, in the absence of corroborative evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, finding the detailed retracted confession implausible, involuntary, and unsupported by independent corroborative evidence such as weapon recovery or pointing out unknown crime scenes. The court laid down the principle that while a retracted judicial confession can legally form the basis of a conviction if found true and voluntary, it is a matter of judicial prudence and caution that such a confession requires independent corroboration from an unimpeachable source, especially when the confession is vast, detailed, and obtained following prolonged custody.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession form the sole basis for a conviction in a capital case without independent corroboration?
  • Whether a detailed judicial confession covering multiple historic crimes obtained after prolonged custody can be safely relied upon as voluntary?
  • Does pointing out a public crime scene already known to the police constitute valid corroborative evidence against an accused?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a retracted confession when the circumstances indicate it may not have been made voluntarily?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Basit Shah, The State vs The State & another, Syed Abdul Basit2024 IHC 208, 2025 YLR 101 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-07
  criminal appealmurder referencedeath sentencebenefit of doubtcircumstantial evidencesafe custody of samplesinquest proceedingsindivisible evidencePFSA report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arose from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-V (East), Islamabad, whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 302(b)/34 and 201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentenced to death, and ordered to pay compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The deceased allegedly died in her matrimonial home under suspicious circumstances. The High Court considered whether the circumstantial and medical evidence, alongside forensic reports, proved the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony. Upon reappraising the record, the High Court held that the prosecution case was riddled with fatal infirmities, including a broken chain of custody for forensic parcels, significant delays and procedural violations under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and contradictory medical findings regarding the cause of death. Applying the settled principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether forensic evidence and expert reports retain legal efficacy when the safe custody and safe transmission of medical samples are compromised by unexplained delays and discrepancies?
  • Whether a failure by the police to strictly comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during an inquest creates fatal doubt in the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained where the medical evidence does not definitively corroborate the alleged mechanism and cause of death?
  • Whether the acquittal of co-accused on the basis of indivisible and uncorroborated evidence necessitates the acquittal of a similarly placed accused facing the same set of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Suriya Altaf and another vs Muhammad Wazir2024 IHC 84, 2024 CLC 1720 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-07Read full judgment →
• Surfactant Chemicals Company (Pvt) Ltd vs Directorate of Input Output2024 SHC 934, 2025 PTD 10 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-12Read full judgment →
• Suresh Kumar Manglani, Tehseen Haroon, Waqas Jawed vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1348 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-12Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan through its President vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others2024 SCP 340, 2024 SCP 342, 2024 SCP 347, 2024 SCP 355, PLD 2024 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-10
  civil review petitiondefectionvote countpresidential referenceconstitutional interpretationparliamentary partydisqualification
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil review petition was filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan against the majority judgment of a five-member Bench of the Supreme Court in Presidential Reference No. 1 of 2022 and connected matters. The core legal question was whether a member of Parliament who votes or abstains from voting contrary to the directions of their parliamentary party can have their vote discarded, and whether such an act results in automatic de-seating or lifelong disqualification under Article 63A of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the review petition, setting aside the majority's short order and detailed judgment. The Court held that Article 63A is a self-executory provision with clear, unambiguous steps that cannot be bypassed. The Court ruled that the judiciary cannot read words into the Constitution, create new jurisdictions, or divest constitutional authorities (such as the Party Head and the Election Commission) of their designated roles. Consequently, votes cast contrary to party directions must be counted, and any subsequent defection proceedings must strictly follow the procedure prescribed in Article 63A.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a vote cast by a member of Parliament contrary to the directions of their parliamentary party can be excluded from the vote count under Article 63A of the Constitution?
  • Can the Supreme Court read words into the Constitution or create a disqualification not expressly provided by the text of the Constitution?
  • Whether the opinion of the Supreme Court rendered under its advisory jurisdiction under Article 186 of the Constitution has a binding and executable nature?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to bypass the adjudicatory role of the Election Commission in matters of defection under Article 63A?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan through its President vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Interior, Islamabad and others2024 SCP 332, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 1228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-30
  civil review petitionbench constitutionrecusal of judgeSupreme Court Practice and Procedure Act 2023re-constitution of bench
  Summary & questions settled

  This procedural order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises out of Civil Review Petition No. 197 of 2022 filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan against the majority judgment previously authored by Munib Akhtar, J. During the hearing, it was noted that Munib Akhtar, J addressed a letter to the Registrar expressing his inability to participate in the bench hearing the review petition at the present time, while explicitly clarifying that his stance did not constitute a formal recusal. Addressing this issue, the Supreme Court directed the Registrar to place the order before Munib Akhtar, J requesting him to join the bench. The Court held that in the event his lordship declines or does not join, the Committee constituted under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 shall nominate and appoint another Judge to replace him on the bench to hear the review petition.

  Questions settled

  • What procedure must be followed when a judge expresses inability to sit on a review bench without formally recusing?
  • Whether the Committee under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 can appoint a replacement judge if a member of the original bench expresses inability to join the hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Superintendent of Police Headquarters, Lahore etc vs Ijaz Aslam, Sana2024 SCP 290, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1310, 2024 SCMR 1831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-07
  service lawfraudulent appointmentinstitutional autonomymisconductdoctrine of unclean handsservice tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsfake documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the Punjab Service Tribunal's decision to reinstate driver constables dismissed for securing employment using fake driving licenses. The respondents had admitted during departmental inquiries that their licenses were obtained through agents without physical tests. The Tribunal had reinstated them citing long service and alleged vague disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment, holding that the Tribunal acted arbitrarily by granting relief based on subjective standards of leniency rather than law. The Court affirmed that appointments obtained through fraud are void ab initio, as the doctrine of unclean hands precludes those who act dishonestly from benefiting from their misconduct. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the principle of institutional autonomy, noting that competent authorities are best suited to determine penalties for misconduct. Finally, the Court clarified that Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 cannot be invoked to claim benefits derived from illegal acts, as equality does not apply to perpetuating illegality. The dismissal orders were upheld, reinforcing that integrity is foundational to public service.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Service Tribunal reinstate an employee whose appointment was obtained through fraudulent documents?
  • Does the doctrine of unclean hands prevent an employee from seeking relief against dismissal for fraudulent recruitment?
  • Can Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be invoked to claim benefits derived from illegal acts?
  • To what extent should courts defer to the institutional autonomy of public sector departments in disciplinary matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Sunni Ittehad Council, Faisalabad, etc. vs Election Commission of Pakistan2024 SCP 153, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 642, 2024 PLJ SC 534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-06
  reserved seatsproportional representationpolitical partiesgeneral electionsparliamentary democracyleave to appealconstitutional interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions challenging the allocation of reserved seats for women and non-Muslims in the National and Provincial Assemblies to political parties other than the petitioner, Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC). The core legal question involves whether a political party that did not contest general elections or win a general seat can be allocated reserved seats under the proportional representation system pursuant to the Constitution. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these constitutional questions concerning parliamentary democracy and electoral integrity, suspended the operation of the impugned judgment and the Election Commission of Pakistan's order regarding the disputed reserved seats, and referred the matter for the constitution of a larger bench. The Court held that the case involves significant questions of constitutional interpretation requiring consideration by a larger bench, maintaining interim relief regarding the disputed seats prospectively.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a political party that did not contest general elections and secure general seats is entitled to the allocation of reserved seats for women and non-Muslims?
  • How does the proportional representation system apply to the allocation of reserved seats under Articles 51 and 106 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • What constitutes a political party for the purpose of allocating reserved seats in the National and Provincial Assemblies?
  Read full judgment →
• Sunni Ittehad Council through its Chairman, Faisalabad and another, _0c86d1c62024 SCP 237, 2024 SCP 220, 2024 SCP 236, 2024 SCP 319, 2024 SCP 320, · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  reserved seatselectoral integritypolitical partiesfundamental rightsproportional representationElection Commission of Pakistanconstitutional interpretationelection symbol
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns appeals regarding the allocation of reserved seats for women and non-Muslims in the National and Provincial Assemblies following the 2024 General Elections. The core legal questions addressed include the consequences of declaring a political party ineligible for an election symbol under Section 215(5) of the Elections Act 2017, whether candidates of such parties can be treated as independents, and the interpretation of Articles 51(6)(d) & (e) and 106(3)(c) of the Constitution regarding reserved seat entitlement. The Court held that the denial of an election symbol does not strip a political party of its constitutional rights to participate in elections or claim reserved seats. It declared the Explanation to Rule 94 of the Election Rules 2017 ultra vires. The Court ruled that PTI is a political party entitled to reserved seats, and the Commission's actions treating its candidates as independents were unlawful. The judgment establishes that election disputes are collective litigation involving the constituency's rights, emphasizing constitutional fidelity, the judiciary's role in electoral justice, and the principle of strict construction for statutes curtailing fundamental rights.

  Questions settled

  • What is the consequence of declaring a political party ineligible to obtain an election symbol under Section 215(5) of the Elections Act 2017?
  • Can a candidate nominated by a political party ineligible to obtain an election symbol be mentioned as an independent candidate in the list of contesting candidates?
  • Do Articles 51(6)(d) & (e) and 106(3)(c) of the Constitution refer to all enlisted political parties or only those that have won general seats?
  • How is the proportional representation of a political party to be calculated for the allocation of reserved seats under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Sunni Ittehad Council etc vs Federation of Pakistan etc2024 PLJ Peshawar 164 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-14Read full judgment →
• Sunni Ittehad Council and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 PLD Peshawar 89 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-25Read full judgment →
• Sunni Ittehad Concil vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2024 SHC 204 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-08Read full judgment →
• Summair vs The State and another2024 PCRLJ 1349 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-26
  robbery-cum-murdersole eye-witnessspot arrestfirearm recoveryfsl reportdeath sentence confirmationomission to frame chargeprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was tried and convicted by the Model Criminal Trial Court/1st Additional District and Sessions Judge (East), Karachi under sections 392/397, 302(b), and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving sentences including death and rigorous imprisonment, along with compensation orders under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution case alleged that the appellant, during an armed robbery at a scrap shop, shot and killed the deceased and subsequently shot and injured the complainant while attempting to flee, before being apprehended on the spot by the public and police. The appellant challenged his conviction through an appeal, raising contentions regarding identification, medical evidence, and procedural irregularities concerning an amended charge. The Sindh High Court evaluated the evidence, addressed the procedural irregularity under section 535 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and held that the sole eyewitness testimony was natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, including a positive FSL report matching the recovered weapon and empties. The court upheld the convictions and answered the murder reference in the affirmative, emphasizing the need for deterrent punishment in violent robberies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission to include an accused's name in an amended charge vitiates the trial under Section 535 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of a failure of justice?
  • Can a conviction for murder and robbery be safely sustained solely on the testimony of a sole eye-witness when corroborated by prompt lodging of the FIR and medical and forensic evidence?
  • Whether ocular evidence takes preference over medical evidence regarding the attribution of fatal injuries to an accused?
  • What is the legal effect of a positive Forensic Science Laboratory report matching recovered crime empties with a pistol seized from the accused upon arrest at the spot?
  Read full judgment →
• Sumaira vs The State etc.2023 LHC 4535, 2024 PCRLJ 1783 · Lahore High Court · 2023-08-31
  Anti-Rape Act 2021SSOIUsexual offences investigationremedial social statutepurposive interpretationmandatory provisionsquashing of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner instituted a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking to quash investigation proceedings in FIR No.1019/2022, wherein the police had substituted Section 375-A PPC with Section 371-B PPC. The petitioner contended that the entire investigation breached Section 9 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021, which requires investigations of scheduled offences to be carried out by Special Sexual Offences Investigation Units (SSOIUs). The core legal questions addressed were whether the provisions of Section 9 of the Anti-Rape Act 2021 are mandatory in nature and whether remedial social statutes should be construed liberally. The Lahore High Court held that the Anti-Rape Act 2021 is a special, remedial social statute aimed at combating sexual violence, requiring a broad and purposive interpretation. It ruled that Section 9 of the Act is mandatory, conferring exclusive investigative jurisdiction on trained SSOIUs. Upon receiving a report confirming that a compliant SSOIU was investigating the petitioner's case, the court disposed of the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Section 9 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021 are mandatory or directory?
  • How should courts interpret remedial social welfare statutes as opposed to penal statutes?
  • Whether an investigation of a scheduled sexual offence under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021 must be conducted exclusively by Special Sexual Offences Investigation Units?
  Read full judgment →
• Sumaira Shaheen and others vs Judge Family Court-East, Islamabad and another2024 IHC 154, 2024 CLC 1801, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 65 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-07-12
  family court proceedingsexpeditious justicewest pakistan family court actconstitutional petitiondelay in family suitsinterim maintenancevideo link evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by petitioner Sumaira Shaheen seeking directions for the Judge Family Court, Islamabad, to expedite proceedings in her family suit and direct the respondent to submit a written statement, invoking the mandatory timelines under the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964. The core legal question concerned the systemic delays in family court litigation and the failure to adhere to statutory timelines, infringing upon constitutional guarantees of expeditious justice and the protection of family life. The Islamabad High Court disposed of the petition by issuing comprehensive administrative and judicial directions to streamline family court proceedings through modern information technology, video-linking, E-courts, strict compliance with statutory timeframes for filing written statements, and prompt determination of interim maintenance. The court held that family courts must strictly observe the timelines provided in the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964, and laid down principles emphasizing the state's constitutional obligation to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice for women and children in matrimonial disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can issue general guidelines to family courts for eliminating procedural delays and ensuring compliance with statutory timelines under the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964?
  • Is a family court judge bound to decide a family suit within the six-month period mandated under Section 12-A of the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964?
  • Can modern technology such as video links and E-courts be utilized by family courts for recording statements and conducting proceedings?
  • What are the legal consequences for a family court judge who fails to conclude a family suit within the statutory timeline?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultani Room son of Shah Zamin, Sanobar Khan son of Said Haroon vs The State & another, Sultani Room & another2024 PHC 88 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sultan-E-Room vs Gul Roz Khan and others2024 YLR 2218 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-16Read full judgment →
• Sultan Mehmood Rana vs Naeem Ahmad, etc2024 LHC 989, 2024 PLJ Lahore 727 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-19Read full judgment →
• Sultan Khan And Another vs Muhammad Nawaz (deceased) Through his2024 LHC 5569, 2025 MLD 428 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-02Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ali Panhwar vs Vice Chancellor, University of Sindh, Jamshoro &2024 SHC 1212, 2025 MLD 148 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-24Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ali Khan vs The State, Haji Dost Muhammad2024 F.S.C 16, 2025 YLR 49 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-10-23
  waj-takkarabscondenceOffence of Zinacriminal appealsecondary evidenceSection 512 Cr.P.C.acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence for abduction and illicit intercourse under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions concern the reliability of "waj-takkar" (chance encounter) evidence, the sufficiency of proof regarding the appellant's alleged abscondence, and whether the prosecution can rely on secondary evidence when substantive evidence—previously preserved under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898—was available but not transposed. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It found the "waj-takkar" testimony unnatural and unsupported by plausible reasons for the witness's presence. Furthermore, the Court ruled that abscondence was not proven due to the absence of conclusive warrants or proclamations on the record. The Court established the principle that "waj-takkar" is weak evidence requiring strict scrutiny, and the prosecution is bound to utilize the best available evidence, specifically evidence preserved under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, rather than introducing secondary evidence in a casual manner. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Is 'waj-takkar' (chance encounter) evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction without plausible corroboration?
  • Can the prosecution rely on secondary evidence when substantive evidence preserved under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is available?
  • What constitutes conclusive proof of abscondence in a criminal trial?
  • Does the failure to produce warrants and proclamations render the claim of abscondence unproven?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmed Hassan and another vs T & T Employees Cooperative2024 MLD 1897 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-07Read full judgment →
• Suleman Shah and 6 others vs Mian Nisar Ahmad (deceased) through L.2024 YLR 1024 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-06Read full judgment →
• Suleman Lalani and two others vs Aqeel Karim Dhedhi and another2024 SHC 620 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-30
  defamationissuance of processrevisional jurisdictionprima facie caseprivate complaintquashing of order
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from revision applications filed against an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon a private complaint for defamation under Section 499 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court applied its mind correctly and found sufficient grounds for issuing process against each of the accused persons, including corporate officers and relatives, alleged to be involved in a defamatory newspaper report. The Sindh High Court held that while revisional jurisdiction under Section 435/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be properly invoked to examine the legality and propriety of an order under Section 204, process cannot be issued against individuals without a prima facie case or specific allegations connecting them to the offense. The Court laid down the principle that at the stage of issuing process, a court must carefully scrutinize the complaint to ensure no person is subjected to unwarranted litigation without sufficient grounds or direct allegations.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court examine the legality and propriety of an order issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 through revisional jurisdiction?
  • What is the test for issuing process against an accused person under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether process can be issued against an accused in a defamation complaint without specific allegations connecting them to the publication or the offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman and 7 others vs Jawad Khan and 2 others2024 PHC 64, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 89 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-11Read full judgment →
• Sukhio Khan and others vs Ali Nawaz and 4 others2024 MLD 656 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-17Read full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. vs Irshad Ali Bhutto and Another2024 SHC 78, 2024 PLD Sindh 205 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-01Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd vs Paf Hotel2024 IHC 220 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-11-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Asif Hussain Shah vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2024 LHC 2988, 2024 CLC 1648 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-12Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited vs Fazal Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs2024 LHC 6297 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-29Read full judgment →
• Suhbat Khan and others vs Hazrat Gul and others2024 PHC 102 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-14Read full judgment →
• Suhbat Khan and 5 others vs Kandi Barami Tappa Karna Khel, Khyber2024 PLD Peshawar 60 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-02Read full judgment →
• Suboor and another vs The State2024 PCRLJ 824 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2022-01-04
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryrule of consistencyprohibitory clauseattempted murdernon-vital body partpunishment before conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail petition was filed by the petitioners before the Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court, challenging the rejection of their bail by the Sessions Judge Diamer. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with a co-accused, opened fire on the victim, causing bullet injuries to his thighs. The petitioners argued that they were falsely implicated due to an old enmity, that no specific role was attributed to them, and that their co-accused, who was assigned an identical role, had been released by the police under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the injuries were on non-vital parts of the body, indicating a lack of intention to commit murder, and that the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was a matter for trial. Furthermore, the number of injuries did not match the number of accused, making it unclear whose shot hit the victim. Holding that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the release of a co-accused with an identical role under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitles the remaining accused to bail under the rule of consistency?
  • Can Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be tentatively excluded for bail purposes if the injuries are on non-vital parts of the body and there is no apparent intention to cause death?
  • Does a generalized and collective allegation of firing against multiple accused, where the number of injuries does not match the number of accused, make the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• SubMachine Guns and other Prohibited Bore Weapons vs N/A2024 SCP 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-06
  prohibited bore weaponsfirearms licensingpublic safetyrule of lawconstitutional equalityright to lifePakistan Arms Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter addresses the widespread proliferation of sub-machine guns (SMGs) and prohibited bore weapons in Pakistan, focusing on the lack of legal authority for weapon permits and the failure of law enforcement to ensure public safety. The Court examined whether the issuance of such licenses complies with the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, and the Pakistan Arms Rules, 2023, while questioning if current licensing practices and exemptions for specific categories of persons violate Articles 9 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court observed a dereliction of duty by authorities, noting the absence of verification mechanisms for weapon licenses and significant discrepancies in reported weapon statistics. Holding that the current state of affairs fosters lawlessness and undermines the rule of law, the Court directed the Federal Government to provide a detailed, signed response addressing the legality of the Rules vis-à-vis the Ordinance and the Constitution. The Court emphasized that state authorities must ensure public safety and that any licensing regime must strictly conform to statutory mandates and constitutional guarantees of equality and the right to life.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of licenses for prohibited bore weapons by authorities other than the Federal Government violate the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965?
  • Are the exemption categories for prohibited bore weapon licenses under the Pakistan Arms Rules, 2023, consistent with the constitutional mandate of equality before the law?
  • Does the failure to implement a verification mechanism for weapon licenses constitute a dereliction of duty by law enforcement agencies?
  Read full judgment →
• Subha Sadiq vs The State2024 SCP 369, 2025 SCMR 50 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-22
  test identification paradecriminal appealbenefit of doubtevidentiary valueappreciation of evidencemurder convictionanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged a High Court judgment upholding the petitioner's conviction for murder and terrorism-related offenses. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the conviction, which rested primarily on witness testimony and a test identification parade. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt. The Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from significant evidentiary infirmities, particularly regarding the identification of the accused. The Court laid down that while a test identification parade is not mandatory, it serves as crucial corroborative evidence that must strictly adhere to established procedural guidelines to be admissible. It emphasized the necessity of assessing both 'system variables'—the procedural conduct of the parade—and 'estimator variables'—the witness's capacity and circumstances of observation. Because the identification proceedings were fraught with procedural flaws, including failure to record dummy features and potential witness exposure, the evidence was deemed unsafe for sustaining a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • What are the mandatory requirements for conducting a reliable test identification parade in criminal proceedings?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on a test identification parade that fails to follow established judicial guidelines?
  • How should a court distinguish between 'system variables' and 'estimator variables' when evaluating eyewitness identification evidence?
  • Is a test identification parade a mandatory requirement for proving the identity of an accused in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Subash S/O Jayram vs The State2024 SHC 734 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-08
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausetentative assessmentattempted murdermedical evidencebail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Subash, under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of an FIR registered under Sections 324, 147, 148, and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had previously dismissed the bail plea on the grounds that the applicant was specifically nominated with the role of causing a sharp-edged weapon injury to the victim on a vital body part. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to the extraordinary discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail where prima facie material, medical evidence, and witness statements connected him to an offense falling within the prohibitory clause. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant was nominated with a specific role, supported by medical evidence and eyewitness accounts, and that the offense under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attracted the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy not to be granted lightly where tentative assessment reveals reasonable grounds connecting the accused to a serious crime, and deeper appreciation of evidence is to be avoided at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is specifically nominated with a role involving a fatal injury on a vital body part?
  • Does an offense under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under appropriate circumstances?
  • To what extent can a court touch upon the merits of a case while considering an application for pre-arrest bail?
  • Is the statement of an injured victim sufficient at the tentative assessment stage to connect the accused with the crime for bail purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Strategic Plans Division and another vs Punjab Revenue Authority and others2024 LHC 2525 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• State vs Ahsan Baseer Sheikh & others2024 SHC 360 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-29Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate General of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad vs Muhammad Tasaddaq2024 PLJ AJ&K 67 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• State Manager KP, Ezdmc etc. vs Raja Igbal Hussain & others2024 PHC 112 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-28Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, Karachi vs Nina Industries2024 SCP 418, 2025 SCMR 406, 2025 CLD 402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-19
  Scheme of ArrangementCompanies Ordinancesecured creditorsminority shareholderscivil petition for leave to appealcompromise or arrangement
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from an order passed by the Sindh High Court sanctioning a "Scheme of Arrangement" under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The petitioner, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, an unsecured creditor and minority shareholder, challenged the scheme on the grounds that it catered solely to secured creditors, ignored minority interests, and was allegedly oppressive. The core legal question concerned the validity and legality of sanctioning a scheme of arrangement approved by the requisite majority of secured creditors and shareholders under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, despite objections from minority stakeholders. The Supreme Court held that the scheme complied with all statutory requirements, having been approved by the overwhelming majority of secured creditors and 100% of the shareholders present and voting, and that the rights of unsecured creditors and minority shareholders remained unaffected to pursue independent legal remedies. The Court affirmed that a compromise or arrangement sanctioned by the court and approved by the statutory majority is binding on all members and creditors, provided no procedural illegality or lack of bona fides is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Scheme of Arrangement approved by the requisite majority of creditors and shareholders can be sanctioned under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 despite objections from minority shareholders?
  • Can unsecured creditors and minority shareholders challenge a Scheme of Arrangement formulated primarily between a company and its secured creditors?
  • What are the statutory requirements for sanctioning a compromise or arrangement under Section 284 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and another vs Mst. Zubeda2024 SCP 1, 2024 CLD 600, 2024 PLJ SC 257, 2024 SCMR 426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-13
  insurance claimliquidated damagesroad accident deathburden of proofpresumption of truthofficial documentsinsurance appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed the respondent widow's insurance appeal and decreed her suit for recovery of an insurance claim along with liquidated damages under Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. The husband of the respondent had purchased an insurance policy and subsequently died in a road accident. Although a police report and newspaper accounts recorded the incident, no post-mortem examination was conducted. The appellant insurance corporation rejected the claim, leading to litigation before the Insurance Tribunal and eventually the High Court. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of the nominee to the insurance claim and the liability of the insurer to pay liquidated damages upon failure to settle the claim within the statutory period despite the fulfillment of requirements. The Supreme Court held that official documents establishing death carry a presumption of truth, that the absence of a post-mortem examination does not invalidate a genuine claim where the insurer failed to establish circumstances beyond its control, and that the High Court's judgment was well-reasoned. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the insurer's liability for the claim and liquidated damages.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an insurance company is liable to pay liquidated damages under Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 upon failing to make payment within the statutory period?
  • Does the absence of a post-mortem examination disentitle the legal heirs of an insured person from claiming insurance benefits arising from an accidental death?
  • What is the evidentiary value of official documents such as death certificates and police reports regarding a death?
  • Where the insurer disputes the cause of death, on whom does the burden of proof lie under the relevant legal framework?
  Read full judgment →
• State Earthquake Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Authority (Serra) through Director General Muzaffarabad and others vs Masood Pervaiz SDO, Public Health Engineering Division Muzaffarabad and others2024 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 27 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Spec Engergy DMCC vs Pakistan Petroleum Limited & another2023 SHC 736, 2024 CLC 1549 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-18Read full judgment →
• SpaceCom International, LLC vs Wateen Telecom Limited2024 LHC 5494, 2025 CLD 241 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-04Read full judgment →
• Soofi Muhammad Farrukh Amin and others vs Federation of Pakistan2024 PTD 406 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-11Read full judgment →
• Sonia Sharief vs Addl. District & Session2024 LHC 381, 2024 CLC 1170 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-25Read full judgment →
• Sona Khan and others vs The State2024 YLR 504 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-09
  criminal appealmurderalteration of sentencemitigating circumstancesdelayed forensic reportinstigationland dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life for the murder of the deceased following a land dispute. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established its case through ocular and medical evidence, and whether the sentence warranted reduction or alteration in light of mitigating circumstances such as advanced age, role of mere instigation, delay in sending weapons to the forensic laboratory, and the substantial portion of the sentence already served. The Sindh High Court held that while the ocular and medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's case regarding the occurrence and the cause of death, the mitigating factors—including the ninety-two-year-old appellant's role of instigation, the delay in forensic analysis, and the prolonged incarceration of the other appellant—justified modifying the conviction. The court laid down the principle that while concurrent findings on guilt based on reliable eye-witness and medical accounts may be maintained, appellate courts can alter convictions from intentional murder under Section 302(b) to sudden or mitigated circumstances under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the presence of strong mitigating factors.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the delay in sending offensive weapons to the forensic science laboratory is fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can an appellate court alter a conviction under Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on mitigating factors like advanced age and length of incarceration?
  • Does a role limited to instigation warrant leniency in sentencing for a murder conviction?
  • Whether ocular evidence corroborated by medical testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction when minor discrepancies exist?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohrab Younas vs Custodian of Evacuee Property Azad Jammu And Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and others2024 YLR 2791 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-06-12Read full judgment →
• Sohaila vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary E&Sed, Peshawar, etc2024 PHC 412 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sohail Nisar vs Nadeem Nisar & others2024 LHC 1435, 2025 MLD 105 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-05Read full judgment →
• Sohail Niaz Khan vs Bilal Rizwan etc.2024 LHC 2437, 2024 YLR 1981 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-06Read full judgment →