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.

• Sohail and Company vs Anti Dumping Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad and 22024 IHC 36, 2024 PTD 872 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-08
  anti-dumping dutiesdomestic industrysection 12(2) cpcsecond appealremandinjury marginstatutory limitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses a writ petition and several civil miscellaneous appeals arising from anti-dumping proceedings concerning Offset Printing Ink. The core legal questions involved whether an application under Section 12(2) CPC was maintainable against an appellate tribunal's remand order when a party was allegedly not impleaded, whether a second appeal under Section 70(13) of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act is restricted by the principles of Section 100 CPC, and whether statutory timelines and definitions regarding domestic industry were violated. The court held that while non-impleadment can amount to a ground under Section 12(2) CPC, concurrent and contradictory remedies cannot be pursued simultaneously, rendering the writ petition meritless. Furthermore, the court held that second appeals under Section 70(13) of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act are governed by restrictions akin to Section 100 CPC, barring new factual grounds and reappraisal of evidence. The key principles laid down include that timelines under Sections 36 and 39 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act are directory rather than mandatory, and that time spent in judicial review is excluded from the calculation of statutory determination periods.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under Section 12(2) CPC is maintainable against a remand order passed by an appellate tribunal where an interested party was allegedly not impleaded?
  • Does a second appeal under Section 70(13) of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 share the restricted scope of a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Are the timelines provided under Section 39 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 for making a final determination mandatory or directory?
  • Is the time consumed in judicial review proceedings included when calculating the limitation period prescribed under Section 39 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmed vs Mst. Samreena Rasheed Memon and another2024 SCP 14, 2024 SCMR 634, 2024 PLJ SC 467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-20
  territorial jurisdictiondissolution of marriageKhulareconciliationordinarily residesfamily courtdual citizenship
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a High Court order that dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petitions against orders passed by a Family Court. The core legal questions relate to the territorial jurisdiction of Pakistani Family Courts in suits for dissolution of marriage where the plaintiff wife is a dual citizen residing abroad, and the interpretation of powers under Section 10 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 regarding the immediate dissolution of marriage through Khula upon the failure of reconciliation. The Supreme Court held that the Family Courts possess territorial jurisdiction since the wife 'ordinarily resides' or visits Pakistan, and that the proviso to Section 10 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 empowers Family Courts to pass a decree for dissolution of marriage by way of Khula forthwith once reconciliation fails, without the necessity of recording further evidence on that issue. The petitions were consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Family Courts in Pakistan have jurisdiction to entertain a family suit when the wife is a dual citizen residing abroad at the time of institution?
  • What is the legal scope and meaning of the expression 'ordinarily resides' under Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965?
  • Is a Family Court empowered to pass a decree for dissolution of marriage by way of Khula forthwith upon the failure of reconciliation without recording evidence?
  • Can a plaintiff wife withdraw the remaining prayer clauses of a family suit after a preliminary decree for Khula has been passed?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmed Siddiqui vs The State2024 YLR 811 · Sindh High Court
  anti-terrorismmurderfirearm injurybenefit of the doubtweapon recoverydelayed FSL transmissiondefective investigationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Sohail Ahmed Siddiqui, challenged his conviction and death sentence awarded by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences 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, arising from a terrorist attack resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the place of incident inspection memo, the credibility of the weapon recovery, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from fatal flaws, including fabricated inspection memos, unexplained delays in sending weapons to the FSL, violation of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding private mashirs, and failure to establish a safe chain of custody. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentences, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a memo of inspection of the place of incident prepared in contradiction to the timeline of the complainant's hospital admission and medical evidence possesses any legal sanctity?
  • Does the failure of the investigating officer to associate private witnesses during the recovery of an alleged crime weapon violate the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the unverified chain of custody and delay in transmitting recovered crime empties and weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory vitiates the prosecution's recovery evidence?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal by way of benefit of the doubt when the prosecution evidence is fraught with material discrepancies, overwriting, and doubtful recovery circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmed and others vs Additional Director, Listed Companies, Adjudication Department-I2024 CLD 635 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-08-25Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmed and 3 others vs Additional Director, Listed Companies, Adjudication Department-I2024 CLD 672 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-08-25Read full judgment →
• Sofia Waqar Khattak vs The Hon'ble Peshawar High Court, Peshawar2024 PLC (C.S.) 1302 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-03
  service appealmajor penaltyreduction in rankefficiency and discipline rulesdispensing with inquirymisconductselection committeejudicial academy
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an Additional District and Sessions Judge, challenged an order imposing a major penalty of reduction in rank under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2011, grounded on allegations of illegally recommending a candidate for the post of Private Secretary in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Judicial Academy. The core legal questions involved whether the dispensation of a regular departmental inquiry was legally justified under the circumstances and whether sufficient material existed to connect the appellant with the alleged misconduct. The court held that the record was deficient and lacked sufficient documentary evidence to justify dispensing with a regular inquiry, thereby depriving the appellant of a fair opportunity to defend herself. The court set aside the impugned notification imposing the penalty, holding that where material is insufficient and contested facts require examination, adopting the regular inquiry procedure is mandatory. The key principle laid down is that while the competent authority may dispense with an inquiry under the efficiency and discipline rules when sufficient material is available, dispensing with an inquiry without adequate and satisfactory documentary evidence on record violates the principles of natural justice and vitiates the disciplinary proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Competent Authority can legally dispense with a regular departmental inquiry under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2011 without sufficient material on record?
  • Does the failure to conduct a regular inquiry in the absence of solid documentary evidence violate the right of defense of a civil servant?
  • Whether an order imposing a major penalty based on a defective fact-finding inquiry and without holding a regular departmental inquiry is sustainable in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Soday Bi through L.Rs vs Additional District Judge, Skardu and 5 others2024 MLD 1354 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-11-10Read full judgment →
• SNGPL through G.M. vs Muhammad Awais SDO Highway2024 LHC 4220 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-01Read full judgment →
• Sirdar Muhammad Umer Khan Khosa vs Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad & others2024 LHC 1310, 2025 MLD 376 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-04Read full judgment →
• Sirdar Mohy Ud Din Khan Khosa vs Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad & others2024 LHC 1305 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sirbuland Khan vs Returning Officer PS 112 & others2024 SHC 928 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-12Read full judgment →
• Siraj Nizam vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 SCP 165, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 867, 2024 SCMR 1184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-02
  service lawcivil servantpromotion eligibilityservice tribunalestablishment codestatutory instructionfact-finding forumremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed the appellant's claim for promotion from Assistant Executive Engineer (BS-17) to Executive Engineer (BS-18). The core legal question was whether the appellant's prior service in a different government department could be counted towards the minimum length of service required for promotion under Statutory Instruction No. 157 of the Establishment Code, and whether the Tribunal erred in its factual assessment of the appellant's eligibility, specifically regarding the departmental examination. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal, as an exclusive fact-finding forum for civil servants, failed to properly examine the record and misconstrued the relevant provisions of the Establishment Code. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter for a fresh decision. The key principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal is obligated to exercise its appellate jurisdiction by thoroughly evaluating both facts and law, ensuring that provisions like Statutory Instruction No. 157 are correctly applied to determine service length for promotion, thereby fulfilling the constitutional mandate to provide substantial justice to civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal have the authority to examine both questions of fact and law in appeals regarding terms and conditions of service?
  • Can previous government service be counted towards the minimum length of service for promotion eligibility under Statutory Instruction No. 157 of the Establishment Code?
  • Is the Service Tribunal required to consider the total length of service performed by a civil servant across different departments when determining promotion eligibility?
  Read full judgment →
• Siraj and 3 others vs The State2024 MLD 1837 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-07-24
  vicarious liabilitycommon objectcommon intentionunlawful assemblycriminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court whereby the appellants were convicted under sections 302(b), 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to imprisonment for life and term imprisonments for committing Qatl-i-amd and attempt to commit Qatl-i-amd. The core legal questions involved whether the appellants could be held vicariously liable for the firearm injuries caused exclusively by the absconding principal accused under the doctrines of common intention or unlawful assembly, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any pre-arranged plan, common intention, or common object under sections 34 or 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, as no specific overt acts, weapon recoveries, or injuries were attributed to the appellants, who were falsely implicated due to prior enmity. The Court laid down the principle that mere presence in an unlawful assembly or general nomination does not attract vicarious liability without tangible and sufficient proof of shared common intention or knowledge that the specific offense was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be held vicariously liable for the firearm act of a principal offender under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of a common object or prior knowledge?
  • Does the mere presence of an accused person at the scene of an incident suffice to invoke the doctrine of common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the evidentiary value of delayed statements of injured witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a plausible explanation?
  • Whether an unexplained delay of several months in sending crime empty shells and blood-stained articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory neutralizes their corroborative value?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindh Revenue Board and Commissioner Appeals-II, SRB vs M/s. Ali2024 SHC 978 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Silver Corrugators & Packages (Pvt) Ltd., Karachi vs Appellate Tribunal2024 SHC 910 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-09Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Hayat vs The State, etc2024 LHC 3567, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1154 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-26
  pre-arrest bailtax fraudfake invoicessales tax evasioncustodial investigationwhite-collar crimeinput tax adjustment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the proprietor of a registered trading concern accused of tax fraud under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The petitioner was alleged to have issued flying or fake invoices without underlying taxable supplies, facilitating inadmissible input tax adjustments and causing significant financial loss to the exchequer. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidence gathered. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. The court reasoned that the evidence, including the adjudicatory process under section 11 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, reasonably connected the petitioner to the alleged tax fraud. It emphasized that the petitioner, as a registered person, bore the burden of proving the lawfulness of transactions under section 2(37) of the Act. Furthermore, the court determined that custodial investigation was necessary to recover electronic evidence, and that no mala fide intent on the part of the department was established.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of flying or fake invoices for tax fraud constitute sufficient grounds to deny pre-arrest bail?
  • Is custodial interrogation permissible in cases of tax fraud involving electronic evidence?
  • Does the burden of proof under section 2(37) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 shift to the registered person to prove the lawfulness of transactions during bail proceedings?
  • Can a petitioner shift criminal liability to a third party to secure pre-arrest bail when they are the registered owner of the business entity?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali Kolachi S/o Dost Muhammad Kolachi, Abdul Ghaffar Narejo2023 SHC 750, 2024 PCRLJ 1890 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-15
  functus officiocoram non judiceterritorial jurisdictiontransfer of judgescontempt of courtbar-bench relation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a judgment passed by an Additional District and Sessions Judge convicting the appellants under section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 following a dispute between the Bar and the Bench. The core legal question was whether a judgment rendered by a judge after the issuance of a notification transferring him with immediate effect from that territorial jurisdiction is valid. The Sindh High Court held that upon transfer, the judge became functus officio regarding that jurisdiction and lacked territorial authority, rendering any subsequent judicial actions coram non judice and null and void. The key principle laid down is that a judge who is transferred with immediate effect loses the mandate and territorial jurisdiction to conduct proceedings or deliver judgments in their former station, making such acts void ab initio.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judge rendered functus officio upon transfer retain jurisdiction to pass judgments in their former station?
  • Whether proceedings conducted by a judge who has lost territorial jurisdiction are vitiated as coram non judice?
  • Can a judge issue a valid judgment after the issuance of a notification transferring them with immediate effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Siddiqsons Energy Limited vs Private Power and Infrastructure Board (Ppib), and another2024 IHC 68, 2024 CLD 18 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-09-11Read full judgment →
• Siddiq Moti (deceased) through legal heirs vs Appellate Bench Registry, SECP, Islamabad and 02 others2024 IHC 228, 2025 CLD 34 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-11-19Read full judgment →
• Sicpa Inks Pakistan Pvt Ltd. and others vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2024 SHC 754 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sibghat Elahi Chauhan vs The Defence Housing Authority and 02 others2024 LHC 4519, 2024 PLJ Lahore 903 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-23Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Khan & Company through Shoukat Ali Khan vs Earthquake2024 SC AJK 40 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Sholo alias Rasool Bux vs The State2024 YLR 328 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-05-14
  death sentencebenefit of doubtabscondencedelayed FIRdishonest improvementocular evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death. The core legal questions centered on whether the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt, given an inordinate delay of fourteen hours in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), a delay in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, material contradictions in the ocular and medical evidence, and the non-examination of a key eye-witness. The Federal Shariat Court, in a majority decision, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The majority held that unexplained delays in FIR registration and witness statements, combined with dishonest improvements by witnesses to match medical evidence, cast serious doubt on the prosecution's veracity. Furthermore, the court ruled that abscondence is merely a weak corroborative circumstance and cannot sustain a conviction when primary ocular evidence is discredited. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report and recording witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of abscondence if the primary ocular evidence is found to be unreliable?
  • What is the legal effect of a prosecution witness making dishonest improvements during trial to align their testimony with medical evidence?
  • Whether an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 can be drawn when the prosecution fails to examine a material eye-witness without justification?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Hassan and others vs The State and others2024 SHC 990 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-25
  post-arrest bailunnatural offencesodomyfacilitatorDNA evidenceprohibitory clausefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This order decides two connected criminal bail applications filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by applicants nominated in an FIR for committing and facilitating an unnatural offence under Sections 377, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the principal accused committed sodomy on a 12-year-old boy, while the co-accused acted as a facilitator by keeping watch outside. The applicants argued that the medical evidence was inconsistent, the DNA profile showed a mixture of multiple individuals, and the case required further inquiry. The High Court of Sindh observed that the FIR was promptly lodged, the victim and witnesses categorically implicated the accused in their statements, and no animosity or malafide intention was shown on the part of the complainant. Holding that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that the lack of a conclusive DNA report does not override strong corroborative ocular and medical evidence, the court dismissed both bail applications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a minor discrepancy or mixture in a DNA profile is sufficient to grant post-arrest bail where strong corroborative ocular and medical evidence exists?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted in an offence falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of any proven malafide or enmity by the complainant?
  • Is a facilitator who stands guard outside the crime scene equally liable to be denied bail under the principles of vicarious liability?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Ahmed Shaikh vs The State and another2024 PCRLJ 1980 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-26
  hawalaforeign exchange regulationcognizance of offenceState Bank of Pakistan complaintquashing of proceedingsFederal Investigation Agencyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from an order of the trial court dismissing an application for acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving alleged illegal foreign exchange transactions through hawala under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the trial tribunal could take cognizance of offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 without a valid written complaint from a person authorized by the State Bank of Pakistan, and whether the foundational mandatory procedures had been satisfied. The Sindh High Court held that the Federal Investigation Agency initiated proceedings and the tribunal took cognizance without the mandatory statutory complaint from the State Bank of Pakistan, and that the officer who purported to file the complaint lacked legal authorization at the relevant time in 2015. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and quashed the criminal proceedings. The key principle laid down is that compliance with the mandatory requirement of a formal complaint by an authorized officer of the State Bank of Pakistan is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction and taking of cognizance by a tribunal under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tribunal can take cognizance of an offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 without a complaint in writing by a person authorized by the State Bank of Pakistan?
  • Was a Deputy Director of the State Bank of Pakistan legally authorized to file a complaint under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 in the year 2015?
  • Can criminal proceedings initiated without fulfilling the mandatory prerequisites of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 be quashed by the High Court?
  • Does the absence of evidence and lack of a valid complaint by the State Bank of Pakistan vitiate proceedings arising out of an FIR under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947?
  Read full judgment →
• Shiraz Mazhar & others vs Defence Housing Authority & others2024 SHC 1364 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-16Read full judgment →
• Sherbaz Khan and 2 others vs Provincial Government through Chief2024 PLC (C.S.) 1426 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-11-27
  writ jurisdictiondepartmental promotionbinding precedentservice matterlocus standirecruitment rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by petitioners seeking promotion to the post of Medical Technologist (BS-17) in the Health Department of Gilgit-Baltistan, citing available vacancies and the initiation of working papers for their promotion. The respondents contested the petition, arguing that it was not maintainable due to the failure to exhaust departmental remedies, the petition being time-barred, and a prior court order restricting recruitment and promotion processes. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to promotion despite a previous court judgment that had restricted such promotions pending direct recruitment. The Court held that the previous judgment relied upon by the respondents was not binding on the present petitioners as they were not parties to that litigation. Furthermore, the Court noted that the restrictive order had subsequently been expunged. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and directed the respondents to promote the petitioners to the vacant posts of Medical Technologist (BS-17). The key principle established is that a court judgment is not binding on individuals who were not parties to the proceedings in which it was rendered.

  Questions settled

  • Is a previous court judgment binding on individuals who were not parties to the proceedings in which it was rendered?
  • Can a government department refuse promotion based on a court order that has been subsequently expunged?
  • Does the failure to exhaust departmental remedies render a writ petition non-maintainable in all circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheraz Hakeem & another vs Agha Khan University & others2024 SHC 1046 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-11Read full judgment →
• Sheraz Ahmad and another vs The State and another2024 PCRLJ 1098 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-31
  joint trialsame transactionhate speechcyber crimecriminal revisioncharge-sheetingPrevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which refused to exclude charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a trial involving offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016. The core legal question was whether offences under Section 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 and offences under Sections 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, and 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from the same transaction, could be tried together. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the offences were interlinked and constituted part of the same transaction. The Court affirmed that under Sections 235(1) and 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, offences committed in the course of the same transaction, even if governed by different statutes, must be tried together. This principle prevents conflicting judicial decisions, avoids the ordeal of multiple trials for the parties, and promotes judicial efficiency. The Court further noted that the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applies to PECA 2016 offences to the extent they are not inconsistent.

  Questions settled

  • Can offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be tried together if they arise from the same transaction?
  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit a joint trial for offences falling under different statutory definitions if they constitute the same transaction?
  • Are the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable to offences prosecuted under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman vs The State etc2024 PHC 200, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1051 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman and others vs The State through Additional Advocate General2024 PHC 338 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sher Zaman and others vs Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and others2024 CLC 1984 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-18Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Province of Sindh and others2024 SHC 148, 2024 YLR 2537 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-21Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan s/o Liaquat Ali Jakhrani vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 SHC 140 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-15Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadar vs President Islamic Republic of Pakistan and 2 others2024 PLC (C.S.) 1006 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-21
  workplace harassmentFederal Ombudsmansexual harassmentgender-based discriminationadministrative grievancesconstitutional petitionNo Objection Certificate
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arises from an order passed by the President of Pakistan setting aside the Federal Ombudsman's rejection of a workplace harassment complaint and remanding the matter for evidence and hearing. The core legal question is whether an administrative dispute regarding the issuance of a No Objection Certificate and general workplace grievances lacking specific allegations of sexual harassment or gender-based discrimination fall within the definition of 'harassment' under Section 2(h) of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. The Islamabad High Court held that a complaint before the Ombudsman must contain specific details of harassment of a sexual nature or gender-based discrimination as defined by the statute and interpreted by superior courts, and cannot be founded on generalized administrative grievances or ordinary dictionary meanings of harassment. The court set aside the President's order, ruling that the Ombudsman correctly rejected the complaint at the outset for failing to meet the statutory threshold.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a complaint lacking allegations of sexual nature or gender-based discrimination falls within the definition of harassment under Section 2(h) of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010?
  • Can the Federal Ombudsman dismiss a complaint at the outset if it fails to disclose specific details of harassment as required by Rule 5(1)(a) of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Filing and Disposal of Complaints) Rules, 2013?
  • Does the definition of harassment under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 cover general administrative disputes and grievances regarding the issuance of a No Objection Certificate?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadar and others vs Abdul Wakil and others2024 PHC 386, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 111 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-20Read full judgment →
• Sher Azam Khan etc, Ghulam Farooq Khan vs The State etc2024 LHC 5656, 2025 YLR 930 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-28
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular and medical evidencechance witnessQatl-i-Amdrecovery proceedingsacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants for the offences of Qatl-i-Amd and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, the status of eyewitnesses as chance witnesses, and the absence of independent corroboration. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The medical evidence contradicted the eyewitness accounts regarding the specific injuries attributed to the accused, and the official records from the Rescue 1122 service negated the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses at the scene. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was found to be in violation of mandatory procedural requirements, and the prosecution failed to produce material witnesses. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused when reasonable doubt exists. The petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of a co-accused was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between ocular and medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries shatter the credibility of eyewitnesses?
  • Is the failure to join independent witnesses during recovery proceedings a violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the presence of eyewitnesses through independent public documents?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when reasonable doubt exists regarding their participation in the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali Mirwani and 4 others vs Ahmedullah2024 PLD Balochistan 97 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-10-31Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali Bangulzai, General Secretary National F&v Commission Agents2024 CLC 1565 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-10-23Read full judgment →
• Sher Afzal vs The State etc.2024 LHC 2860, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 973, 2024 LHC 3156, 2024 PCRLJ 2045 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-29
  concurrent sentencesimprisonment for lifebeneficial interpretationhardship casesinherent powers of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Sher Afzal, a convict seeking an order for his sentences of imprisonment awarded in two separate trials to run concurrently under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the court can exercise its discretion to order multiple sentences of imprisonment for life arising from different trials to run concurrently, particularly in cases of hardship. The Lahore High Court held that Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confers wide and unfettered discretion on courts to direct subsequent sentences to run concurrently with previous sentences to meet the ends of justice and avoid ruthless treatment of the convict. The court laid down the principle that beneficial provisions of law concerning the liberty of a convict must be interpreted compassionately in favor of the convict, and the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked in appropriate cases where previous courts remained silent on the concurrency of sentences, provided the superior court has not explicitly denied such benefit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the court has the discretion to direct that sentences of imprisonment awarded in different trials shall run concurrently?
  • Can the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for concurrency of sentences when trial and appellate courts remain silent on the point?
  • Is Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to be construed liberally in favor of the convict's liberty?
  Read full judgment →
• Shell Pakistan Limited vs Capital Development Authority and others2024 IHC 70, 2024 MLD 261 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-16Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Tariq Mahmood vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Rawalpindi2024 ATIR 3 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2024-05-20Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Rizwan Ahmed Jillani vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB)2024 MLD 161 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-18
  National Accountability Ordinanceembezzlementfake bank statementsabatement of appealsentence of finehandwriting proofacquittal of co-accusedcorrupt practices
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased appellant, Sheikh Rizwan Ahmed Jillani, challenging his conviction and sentence of fine under Section 9(a)(xii) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, passed by the Accountability Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges of forgery, preparation of fake bank statements, and active connivance in embezzlement against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the sentence of fine could be maintained after the appellant's death during the pendency of the appeal. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the appellant's guilt, noting a lack of handwriting expert evidence, the impossibility of the appellant preparing bank statements for a period when he was not posted at the branch, and the acquittal of a co-accused with a nearly identical role. The court laid down the principle that witnesses found false or untrustworthy regarding co-accused cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration, and accordingly set aside the sentence of fine.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal against a conviction abate entirely upon the death of the appellant, or can it proceed regarding a sentence of fine?
  • Can a conviction for preparing fake bank statements be sustained without submitting the disputed writings and signatures to a handwriting expert?
  • Whether the testimony of prosecution witnesses found untrustworthy with respect to an acquitted co-accused can be relied upon against a remaining accused without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed vs The State2024 LHC 5726, 2025 MLD 677 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-10
  acquittal applicationSection 265-K CrPCcriminal revisionprobability of convictionanti-terrorism courtinherent powers of trial courtfutile trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) dismissing the petitioner's application for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The petitioner, implicated in a case involving an attack on the General Headquarters based on a co-accused's statement, argued that the prosecution was politically motivated and that there was no probability of conviction. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to exercise its inherent power to acquit the accused at the initial stage of the proceedings. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the ATC’s refusal was legally sound. The court affirmed that while Section 265-K empowers a court to acquit an accused at any stage if there is no probability of conviction, this power must be exercised with caution and not in an omnibus or adventurous manner. Where there is even a slight probability of conviction, the court must proceed with the trial. The petitioner remains at liberty to re-apply for acquittal at a later stage if evidence warrants it.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court exercise its power under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at any stage of the trial?
  • Is the power of acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory when there is a slight probability of conviction?
  • Does the dismissal of an acquittal application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude an accused from filing a fresh application at a later stage of the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed vs Ig, Islamabad and others2024 IHC 126 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-25Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Nazir Ahmed vs Muhammad Azeem2024 IHC 234, 2025 CLD 332 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-22Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Nadeem Rehmat through appointed attorney vs Mrs. Zarqa2024 PLD Sindh 202 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-06Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Nadeem Anwar vs Learned Illaqa Magistrate, etc2024 LHC 5466, 2025 PLJ Lahore 210, 2025 PLD Lahore 496 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-11Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Zulfiqar vs Malik Sheraz Zafar and others2024 IHC 164, 2024 YLR 2605 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-08-05Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Hafeez vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2023 LHC 845, 2024 CLC 1012 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-08
  public orderfreedom of movementright to assembleroad blockadecivil administrationpolice accountabilityfundamental rightssit-in
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the prolonged blockade of major roads and highways in Rawalpindi by political protestors, which paralyzed public life and hindered access to essential services. The core legal question concerned the extent of the fundamental right to assemble versus the rights of citizens to freedom of movement, trade, and business, and the corresponding duty of state functionaries to maintain public order. The Court held that the civil administration and police failed to discharge their statutory obligations under the Punjab Civil Administration Act 2017 and the Police Order 2002 by acting as silent spectators rather than enforcing the law. The Court affirmed that while the right to assemble is guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution, it is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions to protect the fundamental rights of others. Consequently, the Court directed the relevant authorities to initiate disciplinary inquiries against the delinquent officers for their dereliction of duty and mandated the development of standard operating procedures to prevent future unlawful road blockades, emphasizing that the State must act impartially and independently.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right to assemble under Article 16 of the Constitution of Pakistan absolute?
  • Does the civil administration have a statutory duty to prevent the blockade of public roads during political protests?
  • Can state officials be held accountable for failing to maintain public order during political demonstrations?
  • Does the right to assemble justify the infringement of other citizens' fundamental rights to movement and trade?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Anwar and 04 Others vs Judge Banking Court and another2024 LHC 297, 2024 PLJ Lahore 192, 2024 CLD 724 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-02Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Khalid Javaid vs Shamas ud Din Chishti2024 LHC 1015, 2024 PLJ Lahore 351, 2025 CLC 513 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-28Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Kamran Shafi & others vs Sadaqat Shafi & others2024 LHC 1974 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-23Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Ali Baakza vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of National Food Security and Research Department of Plant Protection, Government of Pakistan and 5 others2024 CLC 2077 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Shehzad vs The State etc.2023 LHC 4526, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 79, 2024 YLR 1675 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-20
  post-arrest baildelay in challanfurther inquiryfair trialnarcoticsprevious criminal recordpolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail petition arose from a case registered under Section 9(1)3C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where the petitioner was allegedly found in possession of 1600 grams of 'Charas'. The petitioner contended that there was an inordinate and unjustified delay of approximately 190 days in submitting the challan (investigation report) to the trial court, which violated the statutory timeline. The High Court examined whether the failure of the police to submit the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 within the mandatory 14-day period, without any plausible explanation, constitutes a ground for bail. The Court held that the right to a speedy and fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution is infringed by such willful delay, which prima facie indicates mala fides and renders the case one of further inquiry. The Court further ruled that a petitioner's previous criminal record or prior convictions do not automatically disentitle them to bail when a case for further inquiry is otherwise established. Consequently, the petition was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate and unjustified delay in submitting the investigation report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of granting bail?
  • Can a petitioner be denied post-arrest bail solely on the basis of having a previous criminal record or prior convictions when a case for further inquiry is otherwise established?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to submit a timely challan violate the fundamental right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Nawaz and others vs Mst. Raaj Begum and others2024 YLR 1238 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-10Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Arshad vs Pervez Arshad and others2024 SHC 304, 2024 CLD 1121, 2024 PLD Sindh 408 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-16
  settlement agreementbreach of contractreflective loss principlecorporate disputemediationalternative dispute resolutionreceiver appointmentcontempt of courtcompany assetsshareholder dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves a fraternal dispute concerning the affairs of Rauf Textiles & Printing Mills (Private) Limited, stemming from a Settlement Agreement executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The plaintiff alleged breach of the agreement by defendant No.1 through unauthorized sale of company assets at depressed values, seeking declarations, injunctions, accounts, and damages for diminution in his shareholding value. The core legal questions included the applicability of the reflective loss principle, whether the defendant's actions constituted a breach of the agreement, and if contempt of court orders had occurred. The Court dismissed contempt applications and an application by defendant No.1, finding his actions prima facie consistent with the agreement. It appointed a Nazir as receiver for remaining company assets (Plot S-113 and bank accounts) to preserve them and realize due sums. Crucially, the Court referred the parties to mediation, emphasizing the importance of alternative dispute resolution, particularly in corporate disputes, and advocating for a pro-settlement and pro-mediation bias in the legal system.

  Questions settled

  • Can a shareholder bring a personal claim for loss suffered due to directors breaching fiduciary duties if the loss is merely a reflection of the loss suffered by the company?
  • What is the legal basis for the 'reflective loss principle' and its exceptions?
  • How do courts encourage and facilitate mediation in civil and corporate disputes?
  • What are the benefits of mediation as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism compared to traditional litigation?
  • Under what circumstances can a court appoint a receiver for company assets during ongoing litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shazia Tehmas Khan etc vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 PHC 290, 2025 PLD Peshawar 125 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-27Read full judgment →
• Shazain Bugti vs Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), Secretariat, Election House and 7 others2024 PLD Balochistan 137 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-01-26Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Mahmood vs Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) through its2024 SCP 110, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-26
  election nominationsubordinate legislationelection expensesfundamental rightslegislative competenceReturning Officerjoint bank account
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the rejection of his nomination papers for the 2024 general elections by the Returning Officer, which was upheld by the Election Appellate Tribunal and the Lahore High Court. The rejection was based on the petitioner's use of a joint bank account for election expenses, purportedly violating a proviso added to Rule 51 of the Election Rules, 2017, via S.R.O. No. 1793(I)/2023, which prohibited joint signatory accounts. The core legal question was whether the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) could, through subordinate legislation, impose restrictions not found in the parent statute, the Election Act, 2017. The Supreme Court held that the ECP exceeded its legislative competence by adding a proviso that contradicted the parent Act, which only mandated an 'exclusive' account without prohibiting joint accounts. The Court ruled that subordinate legislation must remain consistent with the parent statute and cannot restrict fundamental rights, such as the right to contest elections, beyond what the Act prescribes. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower orders, deeming the petitioner's nomination papers accepted and directing the allocation of an election symbol.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Election Commission of Pakistan, through subordinate rules, impose restrictions on election candidates that are not present in the parent Election Act, 2017?
  • Does the requirement for an 'exclusive' bank account for election expenses under the Election Act, 2017, inherently prohibit the use of a joint bank account?
  • What is the legal test for determining whether subordinate legislation is ultra vires the parent statute?
  • Does a Returning Officer have the authority to reject nomination papers based on 'office hours' not explicitly defined in the election schedule?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hussain vs The State thr. PG Punjab & another2024 SCP 121, 2024 SCMR 929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-14
  criminal appealmurderlife imprisonmentdelay in FIRbenefit of doubtacquittal of co-accusedbest evidence withheld
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), where the trial court sentenced the appellant to death, and the High Court subsequently modified the sentence to life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and co-accused ambushed the deceased and an injured party over a property dispute. The core legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether an unexplained four-hour delay in lodging the FIR, the withholding of an injured eyewitness, and the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence created reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that an unexplained delay in reporting a crime raises the probability of deliberation and consultation. Furthermore, withholding an injured eyewitness amounts to withholding the best evidence, and where co-accused are acquitted on identical evidence, the benefit of doubt must similarly extend to the remaining accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create reasonable doubt regarding deliberate consultation and fabrication?
  • Can an accused be convicted on the same evidence that was disbelieved to acquit co-accused in the same transaction?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to produce an injured eyewitness without a valid explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui and others vs Federation of Pakistan, Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice and others2024 SCP 112, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 746, 2025 PLJ SC 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-22
  judicial misconductSupreme Judicial Councildue processouster clausejudicial independencecoram non judicemala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the removal of Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui from the Islamabad High Court by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) for alleged misconduct following a public speech. The core legal question was whether the SJC could remove a judge without a formal inquiry and whether such action, despite the ouster clause in Article 211 of the Constitution, was justiciable. The Supreme Court held that the SJC’s failure to conduct an inquiry into the allegations violated the fundamental right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10A. The Court ruled that the SJC’s proceedings were coram non judice and mala fide, rendering the ouster clause inapplicable. It established that the removal of a judge requires a formal inquiry to determine facts, and the SJC cannot rely on vague, unspecified standards of behavior outside the Code of Conduct. Consequently, the Court set aside the SJC’s report and the removal notification. As the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation during the proceedings, he was deemed retired with full benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the ouster clause in Article 211 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 protect acts of the Supreme Judicial Council that are mala fide or coram non judice?
  • Is the Supreme Judicial Council required to conduct a formal inquiry before removing a judge for misconduct under Article 209 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the Supreme Judicial Council determine a judge's misconduct based on vague standards of behavior outside the prescribed Code of Conduct?
  • Does the removal of a judge without a formal inquiry violate the fundamental right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali, Azeem Hassan Mushtaq vs The State2024 SCP 19, 2024 SCMR 594, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 98 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-15
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationperverse orderopinion of investigating officeripse dixitocular accountmedical evidencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, assailing the Lahore High Court order granting post-arrest bail to the respondent in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 34, and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question concerns whether bail was rightly granted by the High Court based solely on a subsequent investigating officer's opinion favoring the accused while ignoring ocular and medical evidence. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the impugned order and recalling the bail. The ratio laid down is that an investigating officer's ipse dixit or opinion lacks persuasive value if unsupported by cogent and concrete material, and an order granting bail by ignoring direct eyewitness accounts and medical evidence while relying on a partisan police opinion is perverse and liable to be cancelled under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted solely on the basis of a subsequent investigating officer's opinion favoring the accused?
  • Does an investigating officer's opinion carry persuasive value in the absence of strong and concrete material?
  • When can a bail-granting order be classified as a perverse order warranting cancellation?
  • Can a bail order be recalled if the High Court ignores material evidence such as ocular and medical accounts?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Abdul Ghaffar2024 LHC 651 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-24Read full judgment →
• Sharjeel Javed and others vs The State2024 IHC 152, 2024 MLD 1815 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-07-12
  Anti-Money Laundering Actpredicate offencetax evasionprospective applicationpenal statutequashing of proceedingsIncome Tax Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by the Special Court dismissing an application under section 265-K Cr.P.C. in a complaint case under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, stemming from allegations of tax evasion under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question involves determining whether money laundering proceedings can be initiated retrospectively for tax evasion periods occurring before sections 192 and 192-A of the Income Tax Ordinance were added as predicate offences to the Schedule of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010. The Islamabad High Court held that penal statutes and SROs must be construed strictly and applied prospectively, meaning acts not punishable as predicate offences at the time cannot form the basis of money laundering prosecutions prior to the cut-off date of the notification. The court laid down the principle that penal provisions cannot have retroactive operation without explicit legislative backing and set aside the impugned order, acquitting the appellants while allowing de-novo proceedings for acts falling within the purview of the law post-dating the notification.

  Questions settled

  • Can provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, be applied retrospectively to predicate offences committed before their inclusion in the Schedule?
  • Whether tax evasion under sections 192 and 192-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, can automatically be classified as money laundering without establishing the existence of proceeds of crime?
  • Does the High Court possess inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to set aside trial court proceedings that are initiated without legal authority?
  • How must penal statutes and SROs introducing new offences or penalties be construed with regard to their temporal application?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharjeel Ahmed @ Sono vs The State and others2024 SHC 962 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-19
  post-arrest bailidentification paradehabitual offenderrobberycriminal trialnon-nomination in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Sharjeel Ahmed alias Sono, in connection with a robbery case registered under Sections 392, 397, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite not being named in the FIR, given his subsequent identification by the victim in a judicial identification parade and allegations of him being a habitual offender. The Court held that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for bail. The ratio of the decision is that where an accused is identified by the victim in a judicial identification parade conducted before a Magistrate, and no evidence of mala fide or animosity on the part of the complainant is demonstrated, the lack of nomination in the FIR is not sufficient grounds for bail. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the status of the accused as a habitual offender involved in other similar criminal activities further militates against the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of an accused's name in the FIR automatically entitle them to bail?
  • Can an identification parade conducted before a Magistrate be relied upon to deny bail when the accused was not named in the FIR?
  • Is a history of being a habitual offender a relevant factor in considering a post-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Shankar Kumar vs Water & Power Development Authority through Chairman, Wapda, Wapda House, Lahore and others2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 123 · Federal Service Tribunal
  proforma promotiondeferment of promotionservice appealexonerationseniorityWAPDA employeesE&D proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal was filed under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 by an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) seeking proforma promotion from BPS-18 to BPS-19 and subsequently to BPS-20 from the dates his juniors were promoted. The core legal question was whether an employee who was deferred for promotion due to pending inquiries and subsequently exonerated is entitled to proforma promotion and seniority from the date his juniors were promoted. The Federal Service Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that once a civil servant is exonerated of charges that formed the basis of his deferment, he cannot be deprived of his legitimate right to promotion and seniority from the date of such deferment. The Tribunal laid down the principle that the pendency of an inquiry which ultimately results in exoneration cannot be used to permanently prejudice an employee's promotion rights, and a deferred employee, upon exoneration, is entitled to reckon seniority and benefits from the date his immediate juniors were promoted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee deferred for promotion due to pending inquiries is entitled to proforma promotion upon subsequent exoneration?
  • Does the exoneration of a civil servant from departmental charges relate back to restore his right to promotion from the date his juniors were promoted?
  • Can a retired civil servant be considered for proforma promotion and associated service benefits after retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Shandanda Gulzar Khan daughter of Gulzar Khan vs Federation of Pakistan2024 PHC 260 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shamsa Batool vs Federal Service Commission and others2024 IHC 12 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-12Read full judgment →
• Shams-Un-Nehar etc vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Education Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Education, Peshawar and others2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 15 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal
  service appealinter se seniorityinitial recruitmentmerit orderdelayed appointmentcivil servants
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated service appeal before the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal addresses the determination of seniority for civil servants who were appointed following a selection process initiated by an advertisement in 2010 and subsequently revived pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the appellants, whose appointments were delayed due to earlier flawed selections later set aside by the courts, were entitled to have their inter se seniority determined on the basis of their merit position in that initial selection process. The Tribunal held that candidates selected from the same advertisement and selection process belong to the same batch and their inter se seniority must be determined in accordance with their merit order assigned by the selection authority, irrespective of delayed joining dates. The Tribunal laid down the principle that appointment and seniority are distinct concepts, and candidates who suffered delayed appointment through no fault of their own cannot be prejudiced in their seniority, which must be fixed according to statutory rules governing initial recruitment.

  Questions settled

  • How is inter se seniority determined for civil servants appointed as a result of a selection process initiated by a past advertisement but concluded later upon judicial directions?
  • Does a delayed appointment affect a civil servant's right to seniority based on their original merit position?
  • Whether candidates selected from the same batch or selection process belong to the same group for the purpose of seniority determination?
  Read full judgment →
• Shams-Ul-Islam Khan vs The State2024 YLR 774 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-06-06
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailold age and illnessforged power of attorneydepriving inheritancecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application filed by the convict under Section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the suspension of his sentence and release on bail, based on old age and illness, pending his appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The applicant had earlier been convicted under Sections 466, 474, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and his conviction was upheld with a modification in sentence by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the sentence of a convicted person can be suspended and bail granted on the sole grounds of advanced age and illness without supporting medical evidence, especially when the matter is already pending adjudication before the Supreme Court. The Balochistan High Court held that bald assertions regarding illness, unsupported by proper medical documents, do not justify suspending a conviction and sentence, and further noted that the applicant ought to approach the Supreme Court where the main appeal is pending. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended under Section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely on the ground of old age and illness without supporting medical documentation?
  • Whether the High Court can entertain an application for suspension of sentence when the convict's appeal is already pending adjudication before the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Does a bald assertion of ailments constitute sufficient ground for the release of a convict on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shams-Ul-Haq vs Karachi Development Authority & others2024 SHC 676 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-20Read full judgment →
• Shams-Ud-Din vs Director/HOD, Adjudication-I, Securities and Exchange2024 CLD 747 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-10-02Read full judgment →
• Shams Ur Rehman vs The State and another2024 YLR 978 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-29
  post-arrest bailsecond bail petitiondishonoured chequedelay in conclusion of trialfresh ground for bailstatutory delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a second post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused in FIR No. 926 dated 27.12.2021 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the ground of non-compliance with the High Court's earlier direction to conclude the trial within one month. The core legal question was whether non-compliance with a time-bound direction for concluding a trial or mere delay in trial constitutes a fresh ground for granting post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that administrative time-frame directions issued for concluding a trial do not form a statutory ground for bail under Section 497, and non-compliance therewith—unless resulting in a shocking, unconscionable, or inordinate delay not attributable to the accused—does not entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right. The key principles laid down are that delay in trial is only a ground for bail if the custody period is shocking and undue hardship is demonstrated, and administrative delay alone cannot override the merits of a criminal case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-compliance of a High Court's direction to conclude a trial within a specified time frame furnish a valid ground for post-arrest bail?
  • Whether delay in the conclusion of a trial by itself entitles an accused person to be enlarged on bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are directions issued by an appellate or revisional court to conclude a trial within a specific time frame administrative in nature?
  • What constitutes a shocking, unconscionable, or inordinate period of custody sufficient to warrant bail on the ground of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamim Ahmed & another vs The Federation of Pakistan & others.2024 SHC 88, 2024 PTD 738 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shameem Omer and others vs Niaz Ahmad and others2024 LHC 975 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-08Read full judgment →
• Shameem Khan vs The State2024 SCP 283, 2024 SCMR 1802 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-08
  reduction of death sentencemitigating circumstancessingle fire shotconfessional statementacceptance of confession in entiretySection 302(b) PPCSection 382-B Cr.P.C.vicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose out of the appellant's conviction under Section 302(b) and Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, wherein the Federal Shariat Court had confirmed his death sentence for killing a van driver during an attempted robbery. Counsel for the appellant did not press for acquittal, seeking solely the reduction of the death penalty to life imprisonment on grounds of mitigating circumstances, including parity with the co-convict who received life imprisonment under Section 302(b)/34 PPC. The Supreme Court observed that the appellant fired only a single shot, which serves as a recognized mitigating factor attracting the alternate penalty of life imprisonment. Additionally, the appellant’s judicial confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C. established that the co-convict had persuaded and abetted the offence, and settled law dictates that a confession must be accepted or discarded in its entirety. Consequently, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the death sentence to imprisonment for life, ordering all sentences to run concurrently, and granting the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Whether firing only a single shot from a firearm during the commission of murder constitutes a mitigating circumstance warranting the alternate sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302(b) PPC?
  • Whether a confessional statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. must be accepted or discarded in its entirety, including portions beneficial to the accused?
  • Can a death sentence be reduced to life imprisonment to maintain parity where a vicariously liable co-convict who abetted and shared common intention was awarded the lesser sentence of life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamasullah vs Additional Sessions Judge-I, Quetta and 2 others2024 PLD Balochistan 123 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-02
  hostile witnesspolice statementcriminal revisioncross-examinationcontradictionstatement under section 161 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the Trial Court whereby the petitioner's request to declare a prosecution witness as hostile was dismissed on the ground that his statement under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code lacked a signature or thumb impression. The core legal question revolved around the propriety of refusing to declare a witness hostile and the permissible use of previous police statements for contradiction. The Balochistan High Court held that while the prosecution cannot use a statement under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code to contradict a witness even if declared hostile, a witness who prevaricates or disowns his version can nonetheless be declared hostile at the court's discretion, and the absence of a signature on a police statement is not a valid ground to refuse such a request. The court laid down principles regarding the treatment of hostile witnesses and the scope of confronting witnesses with previous statements under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order.

  Questions settled

  • Can the prosecution use a previous statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to contradict a witness even after declaring him hostile?
  • Does the absence of a signature or thumb impression on a statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 bar a court from declaring a witness hostile?
  • Under what circumstances may a court permit a party to put cross-examination questions to its own witness?
  • What is the evidentiary scope of confronting a prosecution witness with previous statements under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 read with section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamal Media Service (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan & another2024 SHC 1184 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-21Read full judgment →
• Shakti Kumar vs Parkash Kumar and another2024 PLJ Quetta 162 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-09Read full judgment →
• Shakoor Khan son of Mohabat Khan vs The State etc2024 PHC 358 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-12Read full judgment →
• Shakir Ullah and others vs The State and others2024 PHC 362 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-25Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed vs Gulzar and others2024 CLC 500 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-12Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed S/O Muhammad Siddique & Another vs The State2024 SHC 714 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-01
  criminal transfer applicationspeedy trialfair trialjudicial vacancynarcotic substancesconstitutional rightsadministration of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal transfer application was filed by the applicants seeking the transfer of Special Case No. 14 of 2024 from the vacant Special Court No. II (CNS) Karachi to another competent court. The applicants contended that the vacancy of the presiding officer hindered their fundamental right to a speedy and fair trial as guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The State, represented by the Special Prosecutor, offered no objection to the transfer. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its authority under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to transfer the case to ensure the ends of justice. The Court held that where a legal right exists, there must be a remedy, and that judicial propriety and the necessity of a fair, expeditious trial mandated the transfer. Consequently, the Court ordered the transfer of the case to Special Court No. III (CNS) Karachi, emphasizing the judiciary's obligation to maintain public confidence and ensure the efficient administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court transfer a case from a vacant Special Court to another court under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the vacancy of a presiding officer in a trial court justify the transfer of a case to ensure the right to a speedy trial?
  • Is the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 a valid ground for seeking the transfer of a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad son of Wali Muhammad vs The State2022 PHC 274, 2024 YLR 766 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-20Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad and another vs StatePLJ 2024 Cr.C. 523 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-21
  narcotic substancessecondary evidencechain of custodyforensic reportbenefit of doubtcriminal appealdeath sentenceprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences awarded to the appellants by the trial court under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions concern the admissibility of secondary evidence regarding a missing prosecution witness and the evidentiary value of a forensic report that lacked proper protocols and exhibition. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the non-availability of the Moharrar through cogent evidence, such as the testimony of a process-server, rendering the secondary evidence inadmissible. Furthermore, the Court found the forensic report defective because its critical pages were not properly exhibited in accordance with the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court, nor did it contain the mandatory chemical test protocols required by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must strictly adhere to procedural requirements for evidence, and any failure to establish a safe chain of custody or provide valid forensic documentation creates reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the prosecution rely on secondary evidence of a missing witness without first proving their non-availability through a process-server?
  • Does a forensic report lacking chemical test protocols and proper exhibition in court hold evidentiary value?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the chain of custody for sample parcels in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaista Habib vs Muhammad Arif Habib and others2024 SCP 131, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 629, 2024 PLJ SC 537 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-06
  child custodywelfare of the minorhizanatsecond marriage of motherintelligent preferencevisitation rightsguardian and wardschild friendly courts
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard an appeal against a High Court judgment that had affirmed the transfer of a minor child's custody from the mother to the father. The lower courts had primarily based their decisions on the mother's second marriage and the minor reaching the age of seven. The Supreme Court set aside these orders, emphasizing that the 'welfare of the minor' is the paramount and overarching consideration in custody disputes, to which the rights and aspirations of parents are subservient. The Court noted that the minor, who was mature and intelligent, expressed a strong preference to remain with his mother, viewing his father as a stranger due to lack of visitation. The Court held that a mother's second marriage or financial status cannot be stand-alone grounds for disqualification. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the State's constitutional obligation under Articles 35 and 37 to protect the child, directing the establishment of child-friendly courts and specialized training for judges to assess the psychological and emotional needs of children in litigation.

  Read full judgment →
• Shahzaib vs The State2024 SHC 846 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-02
  post-arrest bailelectricity theftprohibitory clausefurther inquirynon-prohibitory offensecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of electricity theft under Section 462-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged the applicant used an illegal direct connection to a transformer, causing financial loss. The applicant argued that the offense carries a maximum punishment of three years, thus falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the case required further inquiry due to the lack of independent witnesses and a significant delay in reporting. The Court observed that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and that the prosecution's case suffered from ambiguities regarding the date of occurrence and the absence of independent witnesses. Relying on the principle that bail is a rule and refusal an exception for non-prohibitory offenses, the Court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail. The application was allowed, granting post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of solvent surety.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offense under Section 462-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the grant of bail a rule and refusal an exception for offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses in a case of electricity theft constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzaib alias Wadero Feroze vs The State2024 YLR 1298 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-25
  narcotics possessionchain of custodysafe custodyindependent witnessesbenefit of doubtchemical examiner reportcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 5000 grams of Charas. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the recovery beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the failure to associate independent witnesses in a populated area and the integrity of the chain of custody for the recovered narcotics. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court emphasized that while police witnesses are competent, the failure to associate independent witnesses in a populated area, coupled with unexplained contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, created significant doubt. Furthermore, the court held that a six-day delay in transmitting samples to the chemical examiner, without proof of safe custody or transit, broke the chain of custody, rendering the chemical examiner's report unreliable. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, establishing that any reasonable doubt regarding the chain of custody or the fairness of the recovery process entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a narcotic recovery in a populated area render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • What is the legal consequence of a break in the chain of custody regarding narcotic samples sent for chemical examination?
  • Is the report of a chemical examiner admissible if the prosecution fails to establish the safe custody and transit of the samples?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of police officials when there are material contradictions and a lack of independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Riaz vs Millat Tractors Limited and others2024 SHC 228, 2024 PLD Sindh 210 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-15Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Junaid S/O Roshan Ali vs The State2024 SHC 818 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-10
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausebailable offensescheating and fraudcriminal breach of trustrule of consistencycivil dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of FIR No. 273 of 2023 registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 34, and subsequently added Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to a fraudulent sale and purchase transaction of a plot in DHA Karachi. The core legal question involved was whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the alleged offenses either fall within the bailable category or do not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether criminal proceedings can be used as a tool for recovery of civil claims. The Sindh High Court held that since the primary offenses are bailable or punishable with up to seven years without falling within the prohibitory clause, granting bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, and criminal courts cannot be utilized for the recovery of money. The Court laid down the principle that in offenses not falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497(1), the grant of bail is a right rather than a mere concession, and commercial disputes requiring trial assessment should not prematurely block personal liberty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be refused for offenses that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can criminal proceedings under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be utilized primarily for the recovery of civil or monetary amounts?
  • What constitutes criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in contrast to a civil dispute?
  • Does an accused have a right to bail in bailable offenses under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Amir Farid vs Mst. Sobia Amir Farid and others2024 SCP 151, 2024 SCMR 1292, 2024 PLJ SC 532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-30
  maintenance allowanceinterim maintenancestriking off defencefamily courtconstitutional petitionvexatious litigationminor children
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional writ petition challenging orders passed by the Family Court and the District Court. The core legal question involved the legality of striking off the petitioner's defence and decreeing a maintenance suit due to his contumacious failure to pay interim maintenance for his minor children as ordered under Section 17-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. The Supreme Court held that the Family Court lawfully possessed the authority to strike off the defence and proceed with the suit upon non-compliance with interim maintenance orders after due notice. The ratio decidendi is that persistent failure to comply with interim maintenance orders issued under family laws justifies the striking off of a litigant's defence and the decreeing of claims based on record. The Court affirmed that high courts rightly decline to interfere in such determinations under writ jurisdiction absent substantive illegality or procedural impropriety, dismissing the petition with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Family Court has the lawful authority to strike off the defence of a defendant for failing to pay interim maintenance?
  • Can a High Court interfere with the quantum of maintenance determined by a Family Court in exercise of its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • Does persistent non-compliance with court orders regarding interim maintenance constitute vexatious litigation and an abuse of court process?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Akbar vs Additional District Judge, etc2024 LHC 4844 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-17Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Ahmed Shah vs The state through Advocate-General, Azad2024 YLR 2393 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-07-09
  qatl-i-amddeath penaltymitigating circumstancesimprisonment for lifeocular testimonyinterested witnessesrecovery of weaponcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for qatl-i-amd under Section 302(b) of the Azad Kashmir Penal Code. The prosecution case was founded on an eyewitness account by the victim's wife, corroborated by post-occurrence witnesses and the recovery of the weapon. The core legal questions involved whether the ocular testimony and recovery were reliable, whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and whether mitigating circumstances existed to warrant the alteration of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that while the conviction for murder and the recovery of the weapon were duly established by consistent and credible evidence, the presence of mitigating factors—including the initial false implication of co-accused who were subsequently exonerated and the absence of pre-planning—justified leniency. The court laid down the principle that even a single mitigating circumstance or an iota of doubt regarding the choice of penalty is sufficient to warrant exercising judicial caution by opting for imprisonment for life instead of the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a related eyewitness can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased in the absence of proven enmity?
  • Does the initial false implication and subsequent exoneration of co-accused persons constitute a mitigating factor sufficient to bar the imposition of the death penalty on the principal offender?
  • Is the strict compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory for recoveries made at the instance of an accused person?
  • Whether even a single mitigating circumstance is sufficient for a court to award the lesser punishment of imprisonment for life instead of death under Section 302(b) of the Azad Kashmir Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Ahmed Shah vs State through Advocate-General of Azad Jammu2024 SC AJK 54 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Shahzab Hussain vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1383 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-11-15
  intentional murdercommon intentionappreciation of evidenceinterested witnessesappeal against acquittalenhancement of sentencemotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and revision arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for intentional murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, while acquitting several co-accused. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of related witnesses, the establishment of common intention, and the validity of the trial court's judgment format. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the ocular account, supported by motive and corroboratory medical and forensic evidence, sufficiently established the guilt of the principal offender. The court further held that mere relationship with the deceased does not discredit otherwise trustworthy eye-witnesses, and that the acquitted co-accused shared a common intention and actively participated in the crime, warranting their conviction. The criminal appeal of the convict and the revision petition for enhancement of sentence were dismissed, while the complainant's appeal against the acquittal was accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of eye-witnesses with the deceased render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can co-accused be convicted with the aid of common intention based on their active participation and motive?
  • Does the reproduction of extensive oral evidence violate the mandatory provisions regarding the format of judgments under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an appellate court justified in reversing an acquittal where the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence against the respondents?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahtaj Sugar Mills Ltd. and others vs Govt. of Pakistan thr. Secretary2024 SCP 244, 2024 SCMR 1656, PTCL 2024 CL. 785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-25
  special excise dutyexcessive delegationdelegated legislationconstitutional interpretationtax refunddoctrine of binding precedentjudicial reviewFederal Excise Act 2005
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses the vires of section 3A of the Federal Excise Act 2005, inserted via the Finance Act 2007, and the accompanying notification levying special excise duty. The core legal questions involved whether section 3A suffered from excessive and impermissible delegation of legislative power and whether a High Court could take a contrary view on a notification whose validity had already been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court held that section 3A validly delegated only ancillary and incidental functions, keeping essential legislative policy intact, and thus did not violate the doctrine of excessive delegation. Furthermore, a prior final judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the notification bound all courts, precluding contrary findings by the Sindh High Court, and refunds of indirect taxes could not be ordered without satisfying statutory conditions under section 44 of the Federal Excise Act 2005. The key principles laid down include the presumption of constitutionality of statutes, the narrow grounds for striking down legislation under the delegation doctrine, and the stringent procedural prerequisites for claiming tax refunds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 3A of the Federal Excise Act 2005 suffers from impermissible and excessive delegation of legislative power?
  • Does a judgment of the Supreme Court upholding a statutory notification attain finality so as to bar a High Court from taking a contrary view?
  • Can a court order the refund of special excise duty without the claimant fulfilling the conditions prescribed under section 44 of the Federal Excise Act 2005?
  • What are the established grounds and limitations for striking down a legislative enactment on the touchstone of constitutionality?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz vs Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of Pakistan Constitution Avenue, G-5_2, Islamabad and others2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 132 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service appealseniority listpromotionnatural justiceduty to provide reasonsadministrative lawcivil servantElection Commission of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal concerns the exclusion of the appellant from a final seniority list and the subsequent promotion of his juniors within the Election Commission of Pakistan. The core legal question is whether the respondent department acted lawfully in excluding the appellant from the final seniority list without notice or reason, and whether the rejection of his departmental appeal without providing reasons violated statutory and natural justice requirements. The Tribunal held that the impugned notifications promoting the juniors and the order rejecting the appellant's departmental appeal were unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that public functionaries are legally obligated to act fairly, justly, and transparently. Relying on Section 24A of the General Clauses Act 1897, the Tribunal affirmed that administrative authorities must record and communicate reasons for their decisions, particularly when affecting the rights of civil servants. The failure to provide reasons or afford the appellant an opportunity to be heard rendered the administrative actions a nullity. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned promotion notifications and the appellate rejection order, directing the department to rectify the seniority position.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a public functionary to provide reasons for an administrative order violate Section 24A of the General Clauses Act 1897?
  • Is an administrative order that excludes a civil servant from a seniority list without notice or opportunity of hearing sustainable in law?
  • Does the withholding of a departmental appeal without communicating the reasons to the appellant violate the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules 1977?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz Shar vs The State2024 SHC 218 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-08
  post-arrest bailrailways theftprohibitory clauserecovery of stolen propertycriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant, a scraper by profession, who was implicated in a theft case involving railway engine parts upon the disclosure of co-accused and subsequent recovery from his shop. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the nature of the alleged offence and the statutory provisions applicable. The Sindh High Court held that the offence was not a routine theft under the Pakistan Penal Code, but rather attracted Section 126-B of the Railways Act, 1890, due to the critical nature of the stolen brake equipment from a running engine which posed a severe threat to human life. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant was not entitled to bail at this stage, while directing the trial court to expedite the examination of material witnesses within two months. The key principle laid down is that theft of vital operational components of public transport infrastructure carrying potential risk to human life attracts penal provisions outside the standard ordinary theft classifications, disentitling the accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether theft of crucial operational parts of a railway engine attracts Section 126-B of the Railways Act 1890?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when prima facie connected to an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life?
  • Does delay in the registration of an FIR automatically entitle an accused to bail in serious offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz Malik vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 634 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →