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.

• Shahnawaz Almani vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1535 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-31
  last seen evidencecircumstantial evidenceAnti-Terrorism Actrape and murderpointationcriminal appealconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for the abduction, rape, and murder of a seven-year-old girl. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution's circumstantial evidence—specifically the "last seen" testimony and the recovery of the body upon the appellant's pointation—was sufficient to sustain a conviction, and whether the trial court correctly invoked the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The High Court upheld the convictions under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, finding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and corroborated by medical and chemical reports. However, the court set aside the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The court laid down the principle that while "last seen" evidence requires corroboration, it becomes sufficient for conviction when linked with incriminating recoveries and medical evidence. Crucially, it reaffirmed that the severity or brutality of an offence alone does not constitute terrorism; the specific intent or purpose outlined in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 must be present to attract its provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Is 'last seen' evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder without further corroboration?
  • Does the brutality or heinousness of a crime alone satisfy the requirements for an offence under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based solely on circumstantial evidence when the chain of events is complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahmir vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 510 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-24Read full judgment →
• Shahjahan vs The State through Prosecutor General and 2 others2024 YLR 787 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-22
  transfer of casejudicial biasfair trialconfidence in judiciarycriminal transfer applicationjudicial propriety
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought the transfer of a criminal case from the Court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC) West, Karachi, to another court of competent jurisdiction. The applicant alleged that the presiding judge had expressed adverse inferences against him and his counsel, thereby undermining his confidence in the court's impartiality and his right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The trial judge denied bias but expressed no objection to the transfer. The High Court observed that while the transfer of a case is an exceptional measure, judicial propriety and the necessity of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice require that litigants feel they are receiving a fair trial. Given the reservations expressed by the applicant and the trial judge's willingness to relinquish the case, the Court held that it was in the interest of justice to transfer the matter. The Court ordered the transfer of the sessions case to the Court of the Sessions Judge, West Karachi, emphasizing the need for a swift and fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a criminal case be transferred from one court to another?
  • Does a litigant's loss of confidence in a presiding judge constitute sufficient grounds for the transfer of a criminal case?
  • Is the consent of the trial judge a relevant factor in deciding an application for the transfer of a case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahida Bibi vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab, etc2024 LHC 2287, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 976, 2024 PCRLJ 1669 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-13
  illegal detentionsuccessive arrestsabuse of powerhabeas corpusfundamental rightspost-arrest bailpolice brutality
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional matter arose from a habeas corpus petition filed by Mst. Shahida Bibi alleging the illegal abduction and confinement of her husband, Muhammad Lateef, by local police officials shortly after his release on bail in previous cases. The core legal question concerned the legality of successive and repeated arrests of an accused in multiple cases and the police practice of withholding formal arrest in pending matters to re-arrest individuals upon their release from custody. The Lahore High Court held that the police practice of successive arrests is illegal, ruling that an accused person arrested in one criminal case is deemed to have been arrested in all other pending cases registered against them at that time. The Court laid down mandatory guidelines regulating the procedure for investigating officers seeking subsequent arrests, emphasizing that arrests must not be made in a mechanical manner or used as a tool of harassment. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the detenue under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and directed the registration of a criminal case against the delinquent police officials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused arrested in one criminal case is deemed to have been simultaneously arrested in all other cases registered against him at that time?
  • Can the police carry out successive and repeated arrests of an accused person after the expiry of remand or release on bail in a previous case?
  • What are the mandatory legal requirements and procedures an investigating officer must follow before arresting a suspect already in custody for another offence?
  • Does the High Court have the power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant bail in habeas corpus proceedings when the detention is found to be mala fide and illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Zaman vs The State etc2024 PHC 354 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-24
  double murderchance witnessinterested witnessmedical evidence conflictunproved motivebenefit of the doubtcriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 302/311 PPC and Section 15 of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013, resulting in death sentences on two counts and imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance and interested eyewitnesses, the corroborative value of medical evidence and forensic reports, the proof of alleged motive, and the reliability of circumstantial evidence in a double murder case. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eyewitnesses, that contradictions between the ocular and medical accounts weakened the case, and that unproved motive and isolated forensic evidence were insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court laid down the principle that where eyewitness testimony is found unreliable and the prosecution fails to establish its case through independent corroboration, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to his acquittal and the rejection of the murder reference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a chance and interested witness can be relied upon without strong independent corroboration?
  • Does a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence vitiate the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of a positive forensic firearms report and weapon recovery when ocular testimony is disbelieved?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to prove the alleged motive behind a crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid S/o Abdul Ghani vs The State2024 SHC 822 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-11
  post-arrest bailextortionprohibitory clausecall data recordfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in Crime No. 601 of 2023 registered under Sections 385, 386, and 25-D of the Telegraph Act at Police Station Ferozabad. The applicant was accused of making extortion calls and demanding a hefty sum along with a vehicle, issuing threats of death. The core legal questions involved whether the offenses charged fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., the evidentiary value of Call Data Records (CDRs) at the bail stage, and whether the applicant made out a case for further inquiry. The Sindh High Court held that the primary offense carrying a ten-year sentence did not fall within the prohibitory clause, that CDRs alone are not conclusive evidence of guilt without concrete material, and that the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The court established the principle that bail in offenses falling outside the prohibitory limb is a rule and refusal is an exception, accepting the bail application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offense under Section 386 of the Pakistan Penal Code falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a Call Data Record considered conclusive evidence to establish the guilt of an accused at the bail stage in the absence of concrete corroborative material?
  • Does an offense punishable with imprisonment not falling within the prohibitory clause entitle the accused to post-arrest bail as a rule?
  • When can a case be considered one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mehmood s/o Muhammad Gulzar vs Azad Government through2024 SC AJK 6 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Shahid Mehmood s/o Muhammad Din resident of Bhimber Khas, Tehsil2024 SC AJK 22 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Shahid Mahmood & Company (Pvt.) Limited and 2 others vs Zahid2024 LHC 3655, 2025 CLD 408, 2025 PLJ Lahore 359 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-04Read full judgment →
• Shahid Iqbal Dar & Others vs Public at large2024 SHC 276 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-27
  rectification of trust deedSpecific Relief ActSindh Trust Actdormant trustmutual mistaketrustees appointmentbeneficiaries rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed by beneficiaries of the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Welfare Foundation Trust seeking rectification of clauses 13(e) and 13(f) of the trust deed dated 24.09.1995 under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and Section 92 of the Sindh Trust Act, 2020. The petitioners contended that due to a debilitative vacuum and flaws in the original provisions regarding trustee appointments, the board had fallen below the required quorum threshold of seven, rendering the trust dormant since 2018. The core legal questions involved whether a trust deed is rectifiable under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 at the behest of beneficiaries, and whether a mutual mistake existing from the onset justified such rectification to fulfill the settlor's intention of beneficiary welfare. The Sindh High Court held that trust deeds are rectifiable instruments, beneficiaries qualify as representatives-in-interest, and manifest mistakes regarding non-existent entities justified rectification. The court allowed the petition, rectifying clauses 13(e) and 13(f) to enable proper constitution of the board.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trust deed is an instrument capable of rectification under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  • Can a beneficiary of a trust institute proceedings for the rectification of a trust deed under the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  • Whether the court can rectify a trust deed when a mutual mistake at the inception prevents the fulfillment of the trust's objects?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain vs Abdul Jabbar Tassaduq2024 LHC 4970 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-22Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain Khawaja vs The State and another2024 IHC 284, 2025 PLD Islamabad 212 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-23
  post-arrest bailsales tax fraudtax assessmentcriminal prosecutiondue processfundamental rightsstatutory interpretationabuse of power
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail after being implicated in a sales tax fraud case under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, for allegedly aiding a taxpayer by opening bank accounts. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings and pre-trial arrest for tax fraud under Section 33 of the Sales Tax Act can be initiated prior to the determination and assessment of tax liability under Section 11 of the Act. The court held that criminal prosecution and pre-trial steps like arrest cannot precede the mandatory civil adjudication and assessment of tax due, as criminalization under the Act is primarily intended to effectuate recovery and requires a pre-existing determined tax liability. Relying on settled precedent, the court emphasized that initiating criminal proceedings without prior tax assessment violates fundamental due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings for tax fraud under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 be initiated prior to the determination and assessment of tax liability under Section 11?
  • Whether pre-trial arrest and detention in sales tax cases are lawful before the tax due has been formally assessed?
  • Does the criminalization of recovery under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 necessitate prior civil adjudication?
  • Are offences under Section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 compoundable upon payment of tax due and penalties?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Gul vs Govt of KP through Chief Secretary and 03 others2024 PHC 180, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1411, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 149 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-15
  deputationrepatriationcivil servantconstitutional petitiontransfer and posting
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant initially appointed as a Lecturer and later promoted to Assistant Professor, was posted on deputation as Deputy Director (Admn) in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Frontier Education Foundation. After filing a complaint against the Acting Managing Director of the foundation, leading to an inquiry revealing irregularities, the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department and transferred via impugned office orders. He challenged these orders under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, arguing mala fide and a right to complete his deputation tenure. The Peshawar High Court held that a civil servant on deputation has no vested right to complete a normal tenure and can be repatriated at any time without assigning reasons. The Court emphasized that deputation is a temporary administrative arrangement, and civil servants are liable to serve anywhere. Consequently, the constitutional petition was dismissed in limine as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant on deputation have a vested right to complete a normal deputation tenure?
  • Can a deputationist be repatriated to their parent department at any time without assigning reasons?
  • Is the repatriation of a civil servant from a deputation post open to challenge in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Aziz Awan, Assistant Education Officer vs Azad Government of The State of Jammu And Kashmir through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education and 6 others2024 PLC (C.S.) 675 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-02-13
  writ petitiontransfer and postingcivil servicevested rightdepartmental exigenciesjudicial interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 44 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974, by an Assistant Education Officer challenging an alleged proposal for his transfer from his current posting as District Education Officer (BS-16). The petitioner contended that the transfer proposal was initiated by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, an authority with no jurisdiction over the Education Department, and sought to restrain the respondents from acting upon it. The Education Department's Legal Advisor clarified that no such official proposal had been processed by the department, characterizing the document as fictitious. The Court observed that apprehensions based on a facsimile of an alleged proposal from an irrelevant office do not provide grounds for judicial interference. Furthermore, the Court held that while the Speaker's involvement in departmental transfers is irrelevant, the competent authority retains the power to transfer civil servants based on departmental exigencies, and no civil servant can claim a vested right to a particular place of posting. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim a vested right to remain posted at a specific place?
  • Does a transfer proposal initiated by an unauthorized official provide sufficient grounds for judicial intervention?
  • Are departmental authorities empowered to transfer civil servants based on the exigencies of the department?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid and another vs Mst. Zainab and others2024 YLR 1584 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-28Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali Memon and another vs The State2024 YLR 1954 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-11
  criminal appealmurderabductionbenefit of doubtchance witnessdelayed FIRrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by the trial court under Sections 364 and 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, the credibility of chance witnesses, and the evidentiary value of alleged recoveries made days after the incident. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant delays in reporting, unnatural conduct and doubtful presence of the alleged chance witnesses, implausible sequence of events regarding the crime, and unreliable recovery evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, granting the appellants the benefit of the doubt and acquitting them of the charges. The key principle laid down is that material contradictions, unexplained delays in FIR registration, and doubtful testimonies of chance witnesses create reasonable doubt in the prosecution case, entitling the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of three days in lodging the First Information Report is fatal to the prosecution case?
  • Can the testimony of a chance witness whose presence at the crime scene is unnatural and unexplained form the basis of a conviction?
  • Does the recovery of weapons that were not used in the commission of the crime prove the guilt of the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right when the prosecution case suffers from multiple reasonable doubts?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali alias Makhi vs The State2024 LHC 4501, 2024 LHC 4610, 2025 PCRLJ 555 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-01
  qatl shibh-i-amdvasovagal shockpost-mortem delayocular testimonydiyatmedical jurisprudenceculpable homicidecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, resulting from injuries sustained during a physical altercation involving kicks and fists. The core legal questions revolved around the credibility of the ocular testimony, the effect of a delay in conducting the post-mortem examination, whether the death was homicidal or natural due to vasovagal shock, and whether the offence constituted intentional murder or qatl shibh-i-amd. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitness accounts were natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence, and that the delay in the post-mortem did not vitiate the prosecution's case. However, the court modified the conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, ruling that the assault using kicks and fists on the body and testis, resulting in fatal vasovagal shock, fell within the definition of qatl shibh-i-amd. The principle laid down is that causing death through a weapon or act not naturally likely to cause death, without intent to commit premeditated murder but resulting in fatal vasovagal inhibition, constitutes qatl shibh-i-amd punishable under Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with liability for diyat.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in conducting the post-mortem examination alone destroy the prosecution's case in the presence of confidence-inspiring eyewitness testimony?
  • Whether death resulting from vasovagal shock or vagal inhibition caused by blunt trauma to the testis constitutes a natural death or a homicidal act?
  • Does an assault committed with kicks and fists that results in fatal vasovagal shock fall within the purview of qatl-i-amd or qatl shibh-i-amd?
  • What is the relevant time for determining the applicable rate of Diyat when a conviction is converted to qatl shibh-i-amd?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheed Shah Inayat Village & Others vs Ashiq Hussain Vighio & Others2024 SHC 398, 2024 YLR 2738 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-10Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz vs The State and another2024 MLD 597 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-31
  post-arrest bailrape of minorblackmailingprohibitory clausemoral turpitudecriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Shahbaz, in case F.I.R. No. 775/2022 registered under Sections 376(ii) and 293 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Mustafa Abad, District Kasur, concerning allegations of rape of a minor, making a compromising video, and subsequent blackmailing. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in a heinous crime involving the rape of a minor where substantial incriminating material exists on record. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that prima facie reasonable grounds connected the petitioner to the offence and the prohibition contained in Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was attracted. The key principle laid down is that persons involved in heinous offences of moral turpitude such as the rape of minors do not deserve leniency and must be dealt with firmly to eradicate such nefarious activities from society.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted to an accused facing allegations of rape of a minor when prima facie reasonable grounds connect him to the crime?
  • Does the offence of rape with a minor attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the effect of statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 implicating the accused in a bail matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Ahmad Khan vs Learned Election Appellate Tribunal and others2024 SCP 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-31
  nomination papersgeneral electionselection symbolelection appealballot papers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a leave petition filed by Shahbaz Ahmad Khan against the Election Appellate Tribunal and others concerning the rejection of nomination papers. The core legal question involves the validity of the rejection of the appellant's nomination papers for constituency NA-144 (Khanewal) for the General Elections of 2024. The Court held that the petition should be converted into an appeal and allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the orders of the lower fora. Consequently, the nomination papers of the appellant are deemed accepted, his name is ordered to be included in the final list of candidates, an election symbol must be allocated by the Election Commission, and his name and symbol must appear on the ballot papers for the scheduled election on 08.02.2024. The key principle laid down is that qualified candidates wrongfully excluded from nomination stages must be reinstated expeditiously to ensure participation in the general elections.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can convert a leave petition into an appeal and set aside the rejection of nomination papers?
  • Does the Election Commission have a duty to allocate an election symbol upon the acceptance of a candidate's nomination papers?
  • Must a candidate's name and election symbol appear on the ballot papers for the scheduled general election once the nomination is restored?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahab Abbas vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 124 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-15Read full judgment →
• Shah Zaman vs The State2024 MLD 1878 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-06-28
  post-arrest bailsodomyrape shield lawsmedico-legal certificatevictim characterfundamental rightshuman dignityfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 377/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 relating to sodomy. The core legal questions concerned whether the applicant made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the legality and admissibility of including remarks regarding the victim's past sexual history or character in medico-legal certificates. The Balochistan High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail as the FIR was delayed without justification and the applicant was not alleged to have committed the primary act of sodomy. The Court further held that evidence regarding the past sexual history or general immoral character of a victim of sexual assault or sodomy is inadmissible under modern rape shield laws, Section 13 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021, and Section 7(5) of the Anti-Rape (Trial Procedure) Rules 2022, and that such remarks violate fundamental rights to dignity and privacy under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court laid down strict directives prohibiting medical professionals from recording comments on the sexual history, character, or anal elasticity of victims in medico-legal reports.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an FIR is delayed without justification and the medical report contradicts the allegations?
  • Is evidence regarding the past sexual history or general immoral character of a victim admissible in cases of sexual assault and sodomy?
  • Do remarks in medico-legal certificates regarding a victim's prior sexual habits violate the fundamental rights to life and human dignity under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are rape shield protections applicable to male victims of sodomy under Pakistani law?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz and another vs The State2024 YLR 1204 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-07
  narcotics recoverysafe custody of narcoticsburden of proofpolice witness reliabilityControl of Narcotic Substances Actappeal against convictioncharas recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Special Court-II (CNS) Karachi, whereby the appellants were convicted under sections 6/9-C read with sections 14/15 of the CNS Act, 1997 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the recovery of 79 kilograms of Charas from a vehicle they were occupying. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved safe custody and recovery beyond a reasonable doubt, whether Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applied to narcotic offences, and whether the onus shifted to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the prosecution successfully established its case through consistent police testimony, positive chemical reports, and proper sampling and sealing procedures. The court laid down the principles that police evidence is reliable in the absence of proved enmity, that Section 103 CrPC stands excluded by Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, that the burden shifts to the accused under Section 29 once recovery is proved, and that courts must adopt a dynamic approach rather than acquitting drug offenders on minor technicalities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the evidence of police officials can be relied upon for conviction in narcotics cases without independent corroboration?
  • Does the requirement of independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • When does the onus shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to prove lack of knowledge regarding recovered narcotics?
  • Whether minor contradictions in police testimony are sufficient to discard the prosecution case in narcotics matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Madar Khan vs Tariq Daud and others2024 SCP 184, 2024 SCMR 1319, 2024 PLJ SC 654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-09
  power of attorneyregistered documentsuit for declarationcancellation of documentsburden of proofspecific pleadingssignature comparison
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose from a suit for declaration filed by the respondent-plaintiff, who claimed to be the owner of a suit plot and asserted that he never appointed the defendants as his attorneys or authorized the transfer of his property. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court and the High Court in revision decreed it in the plaintiff's favor. The Supreme Court of Pakistan analyzed the evidence and noted that the plaintiff himself summoned the record keeper from the Sub-Registrar's office and exhibited the registered power of attorney as Exh.PW-1/1. The Court held that since the plaintiff himself proved the existence of the registered power of attorney and failed to discharge the initial onus of proving forgery—such as by seeking forensic comparison of his signatures—the presumption of correctness attached to the registered document remained unrebutted. Furthermore, the Court ruled that where a registered document is challenged, the plaintiff must seek its cancellation under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, rather than a mere declaration under Section 42. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the appellate and revisional decrees, restoring the trial court's dismissal of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff challenging a registered power of attorney must specifically plead and prove the grounds of fraud or forgery rather than making general denials?
  • Does the initial burden of proof shift to the defendant when the plaintiff himself summons the registration record and exhibits the registered power of attorney?
  • Is a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 maintainable when the appropriate remedy is to seek the cancellation of a registered document under Section 39 of the same Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Jehan vs Zainul Abidin through legal heirs and others2024 PHC 154 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-25Read full judgment →
• Shah Jan Kareem and another vs Bashir and 2 others2024 PLJ Quetta 172 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-16Read full judgment →
• Shafquat Hussain vs The State2024 MLD 327 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-05
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular testimonycontradictionsabscondencefaulty investigationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant handed down by the trial court under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder and rioting. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony, material contradictions among eyewitnesses, unexplained delays in forensic analysis, and the benefit of doubt arising from defective investigation. The Sindh High Court held that numerous discrepancies in the testimonies of eyewitnesses, the non-examination of a material eye-witness who disowned the incident, medical evidence contradicting the prosecution's narrative regarding the firing distance and posture of the deceased, and delayed forensic reporting collectively created reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a criminal case is sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused as a matter of right, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions between the FIR and ocular testimony regarding the arrival and specific acts of the accused are sufficient to create reasonable doubt?
  • Does the withholding or non-examination of a key eyewitness who filed an application stating he did not witness the incident attract an adverse inference under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Whether long abscondence of an accused alone, without being put to him in his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is sufficient proof of guilt?
  • Is an unexplained, prolonged delay in sending recovered crime empties and blood-stained items for forensic analysis fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafqatullah son of Azizullah vs The State2024 SHC 932 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-09
  pre-arrest bailProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordernarcoticsbailable offencerecovery witnesscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal bail application filed by the applicant, Shafqatullah, seeking confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The applicant was previously arrested for possession of narcotics and intoxicants, leading to separate FIRs. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the alleged offences under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and the failure of the police to associate independent witnesses during the recovery. The Court observed that the recovery occurred in a populated area without complying with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, noting that the offence under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 is punishable by up to two years, the Court held that the offence is bailable. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that for bail purposes, the lesser punishment provided in a statute should be considered when determining the bailable nature of an offence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the offence of possessing intoxicants under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 considered a bailable offence?
  • Should the court consider the lesser punishment provided in a statute when determining whether an offence is bailable for the purpose of granting bail?
  • Does the failure of police to associate private witnesses during a recovery in a populated area impact the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Hussain vs Abdul Hameed and others2024 IHC 24, 2025 PLD Islamabad 97 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-22Read full judgment →
• Shafaq Ishtiaq vs Principal Government Elementary College of Education2024 SHC 1410 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-01Read full judgment →
• Shadeeullah vs The State2024 PCRLJ 273 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-04-27
  capital punishmentmurder referencesudden provocationappreciation of evidenceidentification paraderetracted confessionocular testimonydeterrent punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arose from the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Mekran at Turbat, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of an innocent student and sentencing him to death with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution alleged that following a blast targeting a Frontier Corps vehicle, the appellant and other personnel dragged the unarmed deceased from an orchard and shot him dead in front of his parents. The core legal questions involved the appraisal of natural eye-witness accounts, the legal burden concerning the defence plea of sudden provocation under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and the propriety of the death penalty. The High Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt via prompt FIR, consistent eye-witness testimonies, medical and ballistics evidence, and an uncoerced confession. The Court ruled that under Article 121, the burden of proving sudden provocation lies entirely upon the accused. The death penalty was confirmed, though the default imprisonment for non-payment of compensation was rectified from six years to six months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of motive weaken the prosecution's case when there is unimpeachable ocular evidence supported by medical and forensic reports?
  • Under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, on whom does the burden lie to substantiate a plea of sudden provocation or private defence?
  • Is a court legally required to record reasons when awarding the normal penalty of death in a case under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a mere retraction by an accused from a confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalidate its evidentiary worth if independently corroborated?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabir Ahmed alias Naki vs The State2024 YLR 1681 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-06-26
  explosive substancesanti-terrorismbenefit of doubtillegal detentioncriminal appealproscribed organizationcontradictory evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court Pishin, convicting the appellant under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged the appellant was arrested with explosive materials and was a member of a proscribed organization. The appellant denied the charges, claiming an earlier forced disappearance, supported by defense witnesses and social media evidence. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, the legality of extended police detention, and whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from major contradictions, illegal detention beyond the permissible remand period, and lack of evidence regarding the proscribed organization. The Court set aside the conviction, ruling that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, establishing the principle that illegal detention vitiates the investigation and uncorroborated contradictions warrant extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Does keeping an accused under illegal police detention beyond the prescribed remand period render the entire investigation a nullity in the eyes of the law?
  • Whether contradictory statements of prosecution witnesses and the lack of corroborative evidence for alleged recovery warrant setting aside a conviction under the Explosive Substances Act and Anti-Terrorism Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabeer Ahmad vs Assistant Commissioner Babuzai Swat and others.2024 PHC 50 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-13
  allotment of government accommodationpublic office holderlocus poenitentiaeillegal orderrectification of administrative ordereligibility criteriawrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his allotment of a government bungalow by the Assistant Commissioner, arguing he was eligible under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Residential Accommodation at Districts (Procedure for Allotment) Rules, 2018. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner qualified as a "public office holder" eligible for such accommodation and whether the authority possessed the power to recall an allotment order found to be inconsistent with the law. The Court held that the petitioner, an employee of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, did not fall within the definition of "public office holder" under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018, and was therefore ineligible for the allotment. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an authority is empowered to rectify or rescind an order that is violative of law or rules, as the principle of locus poenitentiae does not protect orders that are inherently illegal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court observing that no legal right can be claimed based on an illegal order.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee of a Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education considered a public office holder for the purpose of government residential accommodation allotment?
  • Does a public functionary have the authority to recall or cancel an allotment order that was initially passed in violation of the law?
  • Can a party claim a vested right based on an order that is inherently illegal or contrary to statutory rules?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to protect an order that is violative of the governing law or rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs The State and another2024 LHC 5071, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 1 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-06
  Call Data RecordCDRSection 540 CrPCforensic voice transcriptadditional evidenceControl of Narcotic Substances Actelectronic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court CNSA, Sialkot, which dismissed the appellant's application under Section 540 Cr.P.C. seeking production of the Call Data Record (CDR) of a prosecution witness (PW-4). The appellant sought the CDR after the closure of prosecution evidence and the recording of the statement of the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. The High Court affirmed the trial court's order and dismissed the appeal. It held that CDR alone merely indicates the geographic range of a cellular tower where a SIM operated, but does not conclusively establish the presence or identity of a specific person at an exact location. In the absence of a forensically analyzed voice record transcript or end-to-end audio/video recording, CDR lacks evidentiary value to establish human presence. Consequently, summoning CDR at a late stage was not necessary for a just decision of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Is Call Data Record (CDR) alone sufficient to establish the exact physical presence or identity of a person at a specific location without forensically analyzed voice recordings?
  • Can an application under Section 540 Cr.P.C. for producing Call Data Records be allowed after the closure of prosecution evidence and recording of statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. without corroborative forensic evidence?
  • What mandatory legal requirements must be fulfilled before audio or video recordings can be relied upon as admissible evidence in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs The State & another2024 PHC 148 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-23
  murder convictionocular evidenceinterested witnessabscondencemotivequantum of sentencecriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal and a connected revision petition arising from a trial court judgment convicting the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular account, the impact of the prosecution's failure to establish a clear motive, and whether the sentence of life imprisonment required enhancement. The Peshawar High Court dismissed both the appeal and the revision petition, affirming the conviction and sentence. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent and natural ocular testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and the appellant's unexplained long-term abscondence. The Court laid down that the mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render them 'interested' if their presence is natural and their testimony is confidence-inspiring. Furthermore, it affirmed that while the absence or uncertainty of a motive does not necessitate acquittal, it serves as a valid mitigating circumstance for determining the quantum of sentence, justifying the trial court's discretion in awarding life imprisonment rather than capital punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased render their testimony unreliable or interested?
  • Can the absence or uncertainty of a motive be considered a mitigating circumstance for the quantum of sentence?
  • Is long-term unexplained abscondence of an accused a relevant circumstance for determining guilt when supported by other evidence?
  • Does the fact that a single accused is charged require a different standard of proof for the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs The State2024 YLR 2118 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-01-02
  Qatl-e-Amdcircumstantial evidenceocular accountconfession before policedelayed FIRreasonable doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for Qatl-e-Amd under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether a conviction can be sustained on circumstantial evidence when the sole eye-witness testimony has been disbelieved by the trial court. The High Court held that once the ocular account is rejected, no other evidence, regardless of its quality, is sufficient to sustain a conviction on a capital charge. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, as the alleged confession before police was inadmissible under Article 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the recovery of the weapon was not linked to the appellant, and the electronic evidence was inconclusive. Furthermore, the Court noted an unexplained 14-hour delay in lodging the FIR, which cast significant doubt on the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, affirming the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for a capital charge be sustained if the sole eye-witness testimony is disbelieved?
  • Is a confession made before the police admissible as evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
  • Is the mere arrest of an accused in an injured condition from the scene of occurrence sufficient to prove guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Liaqat Ali and others vs Ghulam Akbar (deceased) through L.Rs. and others2024 YLR 201 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-22Read full judgment →
• Sh. Bashir Ahmad and others vs Muhammad Asadullah (deceased)2024 SCP 357, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 1262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-17
  Public Account of the FederationDiamer-Bhasha and Mohmand Dams FundImplementation BenchJudicial oversightConstitutional jurisdictionWAPDA
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the management of the 'Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of Pakistan Diamer-Bhasha and Mohmand Dams Fund' and the role of the Supreme Court's Implementation Bench. The Government of Pakistan and the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) sought the transfer of funds held in a specific Supreme Court-named account to the Public Account of the Federation. The core questions addressed were the constitutional propriety of the Court holding such funds and the necessity of continued judicial oversight via an Implementation Bench and periodic progress reports. The Court held that the funds must be transferred to the Public Account of the Federation pursuant to Article 78(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and the account should be closed. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Implementation Bench, having lost its members to retirement, was no longer functional, and WAPDA was relieved of the obligation to submit further progress reports. The principle established is that judicial bodies should not hold public funds, which must instead be credited to the Public Account of the Federation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether funds deposited in an account named after the Supreme Court of Pakistan must be transferred to the Public Account of the Federation?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to maintain an Implementation Bench for monitoring construction projects indefinitely?
  • Is WAPDA required to submit periodic progress reports to the Supreme Court in the absence of an active Implementation Bench?
  Read full judgment →
• Service Global Footwear Limited & another vs Federation of Pakistan2024 LHC 2738, 2024 PTD 1271 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-04Read full judgment →
• Senior General Manager, Pakistan Railways, etc. vs Muhammad Pervaiz2024 SCP 21, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 508, 2024 PLJ SC 234, 2024 SCMR 581 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-20
  advance incrementshigher educational qualificationservice appealjudicial review of policyPakistan RailwaysFederal Service TribunalL.L.B. degree
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal with leave of the court challenged the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had allowed the respondent-employee's service appeal and held him entitled to receive advance increments for acquiring a higher qualification of L.L.B. The core legal question was whether an employee of Pakistan Railways who had already received advance increments for attaining a Master of Arts degree was further entitled to advance increments on acquiring an L.L.B. degree under the applicable incentive policies and notifications. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's judgment, holding that advance increments for an L.L.B. degree were specifically restricted to employees working in organizations dispensing justice or directly connected with court work, and further subject to the condition that no duplicate increments were admissible if an employee had already received them for an M.A. or M.Sc. degree. The court laid down the principle that government policies providing incentives for higher education must be interpreted in light of their underlying rationale and job-related objectives, and that the judicial review of executive policy is limited to examining arbitrariness, discrimination, or constitutional violations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee who has already received advance increments for acquiring a Master's degree is entitled to additional advance increments upon obtaining an L.L.B. degree?
  • Are advance increments for acquiring an L.L.B. degree admissible to employees of departments not directly connected with the work of dispensing justice?
  • What is the scope and purview of the judicial review of government policies by the superior courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Senator Khalida Ateeb vs The Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 7 others2024 PLD Sindh 273 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-16Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Finance Division, Government of Pakistan, and others vs Muhammad Anwar2024 SCP 305, 2025 SCMR 153, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 255 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-10
  civil servantpromotionproforma promotionsuperannuationjurisdiction of service tribunalfitness and eligibilitydepartmental promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a challenge to a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which allowed an appeal filed by a retired civil servant, declaring him qualified for promotion from the date others were promoted and directing that he be considered for proforma promotion. The core legal questions concern whether the Service Tribunal is competent to declare a civil servant 'qualified' or fit for promotion, whether a retired civil servant can claim promotion, and the distinct nature of promotion versus proforma promotion. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by evaluating fitness and eligibility and declaring the respondent qualified for promotion, as the determination of fitness is the exclusive domain of the competent authority and designated forums, and promotion cannot be granted post-retirement or with retrospective effect. However, the direction to consider the respondent for proforma promotion was sustained given his exoneration from disciplinary charges. The key principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the competent authority regarding the fitness and eligibility of a civil servant for promotion, nor can promotion be claimed after attaining the age of superannuation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is competent to declare a civil servant qualified or fit for promotion?
  • Can a civil servant claim promotion to a higher post after retiring upon attaining the age of superannuation?
  • Does the determination of fitness and suitability for promotion fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent authority?
  • Is promotion a vested right that can be claimed with retrospective effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Finance, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhtua, Peshawar and another vs Syed Jehangir Shah and others2024 SCP 42, 2024 SCMR 538, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-29
  special allowanceutility allowanceCivil SecretariatSolicitor Officereasonable classificationequality before lawconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by the Appellant Department challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 23.04.2015, which allowed the respondents' writ petition and granted them special allowance and utility allowance. The core legal question was whether the employees of the Solicitor Office, situated within the premises of the Civil Secretariat, were entitled to the special and utility allowances granted to the employees of the Civil Secretariat. The Supreme Court held that denying these allowances to the respondents while granting them to other employees similarly placed within the same premises constitutes an unreasonable classification violating the principle of equality before the law under Article 25 of the Constitution. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment. The key principle laid down is that state authorities cannot arbitrarily deny monetary benefits and allowances to government servants who are similarly placed without a reasonable and defensible classification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of the Solicitor Office working within the Civil Secretariat premises are entitled to special and utility allowances granted to Secretariat employees?
  • Does the denial of allowances to government servants similarly placed to those receiving them violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • What constitutes a reasonable classification for the grant of government allowances to civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Searle Pakistan Ltd. & another vs The Competition Commission of Pakistan2024 SHC 660, 2024 CLD 1314 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-07Read full judgment →
• Sayyed Mukammal Shah vs Mst. Nasira and others2024 PHC 414 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-12-23Read full judgment →
• Sawab Khan vs The State and another2024 MLD 1682 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-01
  circumstantial evidencemurderexhumationburden of proofplea of alibiconcealment of crimecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for the murders of his two wives under Section 302(b), Section 202 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, following the exhumation of their dead bodies from a single grave inside a room of the appellant's residential house. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant through an unbreakable chain of circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the dead bodies from his house on his pointation and matching firearm evidence, and whether the appellant's failure to provide a credible explanation for the unnatural deaths under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 warranted conviction. The Peshawar High Court held that the circumstantial evidence conclusively proved the appellant's guilt, and his unnatural conduct and false plea of alibi further corroborated the prosecution's case. The court laid down the principle that where vulnerable dependents residing with an accused meet unnatural deaths within his house, the accused bears the burden under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 to offer a reasonable explanation, failing which an adverse inference is drawn against him. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether recovery of dead bodies from a residential house under the control of the accused constitutes sufficient circumstantial evidence to sustain a murder conviction?
  • Does the failure of an accused to offer a reasonable explanation regarding the unnatural death of a family member residing with him shift or strengthen the evidentiary burden under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a plea of alibi raised during examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted when it is neither suggested to prosecution witnesses nor supported by attending circumstances?
  • Whether the omission of specific phrasing regarding multiple counts in a sentencing order vitiates the sentence when the text clearly implicates separate convictions for each deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Saturgun vs Engineer Kumar & Another2024 SHC 444 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-20Read full judgment →
• Sartaj alias Sartaja vs The State2024 YLR 2511 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-14
  murderdeath sentenceeyewitness testimonyabsconderforensic ballisticsprompt FIRcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the premeditated murder of the deceased. The core legal question centered on whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder, given the appellant's defense of false implication and alibi. The Sindh High Court held that the eyewitness testimony—corroborated by medical evidence, prompt registration of the First Information Report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, forensic ballistics matching crime-scene empties with a pistol recovered from the appellant upon his arrest in another jurisdiction, and the appellant's status as an absconder—was reliable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring. The Court established that minor contradictions do not impair the prosecution's case, that the testimony of police witnesses without proven ill-will is credible, and that substitution of the real culprit by close relatives is highly improbable. Consequently, the conviction and death sentence were upheld, and the confirmation reference was answered in the affirmative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eyewitnesses can be relied upon without corroboration in a murder trial?
  • Does a slight delay in lodging the First Information Report vitiate the prosecution's case when satisfactorily explained?
  • Whether a positive forensic ballistics match between crime-scene empties and a weapon recovered from the accused constitutes strong corroborative evidence?
  • Can the defense of alibi be sustained when it is not put to prosecution witnesses during cross-examination and no defense witnesses are produced?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarmad Tanveer vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 32024 PLJ Lahore 428 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sarfraz Khan vs Province of Punjab & others2024 LHC 5170, 2025 CLC 434 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-05Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz alias Faraz and others vs The State and others2024 SHC 396, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 934 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-07
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaymurdercriminal revisionjoint investigation teamtrial delaybail on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves post-arrest bail applications and a criminal revision petition filed by accused persons charged with the brutal murder of a police officer. The core legal questions concern whether the accused are entitled to bail on merits or on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial, and whether a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) report can be produced as evidence during the prosecution's case. The Court dismissed the bail applications and the revision petition. It held that the accused failed to demonstrate that the delay in trial was attributable to the prosecution, noting that the accused themselves filed numerous obstructive applications to delay proceedings. Furthermore, the Court found no legal basis for the production of a JIT report during the prosecution's evidence phase. The key principle laid down is that when determining statutory delay for bail, courts must assess whether the delay was occasioned by the accused's own conduct, such as filing repetitive or unnecessary applications, rather than relying on mathematical calculations of time. Additionally, the Court affirmed that trial courts should refrain from granting bail once the trial has substantially proceeded.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused claim bail on the ground of statutory delay if the delay in trial was caused by the accused's own conduct?
  • Is there a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 that permits the production of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) report as evidence during the prosecution's case?
  • Should a trial court grant post-arrest bail once the trial has proceeded and material witnesses have been examined?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ali Abro vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 366 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-30Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmed vs The State2024 SCP 224, 2024 SCMR 1571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-22
  narcoticschain of custodysafe custodysafe transmissionnon-production of Moharrarcontraband recoverycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from the petitioner's conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which had been upheld by the High Court of Balochistan. The prosecution alleged that 146.200 kilograms of Charas, divided into 150 pieces, were recovered from secret cavities in a vehicle driven by the petitioner. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody and proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the 150 sample pieces were improperly sealed in a single parcel rather than individual parcels, the Moharrar responsible for safe custody was not produced as a witness, and the seized vehicle was never produced during the trial. The Court held that safe custody and transmission of the contraband must be established through an unbroken, unsuspicious chain of custody. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and acquitted the petitioner due to these fatal evidentiary gaps.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of failing to produce the Moharrar at trial to prove the safe custody of recovered contraband?
  • Does the failure to separately seal individual sample pieces of recovered narcotics violate established judicial guidelines for forensic analysis?
  • How does a break or gap in the chain of custody of seized drugs affect the reliability of the Government Analyst's report?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics recovery be sustained if the prosecution fails to produce the seized vehicle containing secret cavities at the trial without explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• sarfaraz Khan vs Peshawar Development Authority through Director and 32024 PHC 288, 2025 CLC 316 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-19Read full judgment →
• Sarem Mukhtar S/o Arif Mukhtar vs Sadia Aquil Ahmed & others2024 SHC 122 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-12Read full judgment →
• Sardaran Bibi vs The State & others2024 SCP 138, 2024 SCMR 1116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-18
  criminal petitionmurderbenefit of doubtappeal against acquittalcontradictionsocular accountmedical evidenceSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside the conviction and death sentence of the respondents and answered the murder reference in the negative, thereby acquitting them of murder charges. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in extending the benefit of doubt to the respondents and overturning a trial court conviction based on improvements, material contradictions, and lack of corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution case was riddled with inconsistencies, improvements, and doubts regarding the source of light at the time of the early morning occurrence, and that the scope of interference in an acquittal appeal is extremely narrow unless the judgment is perverse or suffers from grave misreading of evidence. The Court reaffirmed the principle that even a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the benefit of a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be extended to the accused as a matter of right?
  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal judgment?
  • Does an unexplained delay in filing a private complaint and material improvements in witness statements cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Shahbaz Ali Khan Khosa vs Commissioner Supervision Division, SECP and 4 others2024 CLD 660 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-09-01Read full judgment →
• Sardar Naveed Haider Khan vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 MLD 1871 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-19Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad vs The State2024 YLR 718 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-09-12
  narcotic possessionsafe custody of contrabandchemical examiner reportdirectory versus mandatory provisionssearch and seizurecontrol of narcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 15000 grams of Charas. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved safe custody of the recovered narcotic substance in accordance with established judicial standards, and whether non-compliance with Section 21(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 vitiates the trial and renders the recovery inadmissible. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully established safe custody and complied with the protocols for chemical analysis under the relevant rules. Furthermore, the Court held that the provisions of Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 are directory rather than mandatory; thus, non-compliance therewith does not affect the admissibility of the recovery or vitiate the trial, though it may invite disciplinary or penal action against the delinquent official. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-compliance with the provisions of section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 vitiates the trial and renders the recovery of narcotics inadmissible?
  • Are the provisions of section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 mandatory or directory in nature?
  • What are the essential requirements for a Government Analyst report under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Can ambiguities in a chemical examiner report be resolved by the trial court under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Boota vs Jaffar Ali (deceased) through LRs and Others2024 LHC 5715 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-28Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Awais Nakai vs Rana Sikandar Hayat and another2024 MLD 1257 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-14Read full judgment →
• Sardar Confucius Imam Qasrani vs Sardar Mir Badshah Khan Qaisarani and another2024 SCP 2 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-02
  Elections Act 2017lifetime bandisqualificationconstitutionalityamici curiaevideo-link appearance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns proceedings addressing the constitutionality and legality of Section 232(2) of the Elections Act, 2017, alongside the issue of whether disqualification entails a lifetime ban. The Attorney-General for Pakistan and the Advocate-Generals of all provinces and the Islamabad Capital Territory supported the statutory provision's validity, a position largely aligned with by most appearing counsel, while certain petitioners' counsel contended for a lifetime ban. Given the profound constitutional importance of the issue, the Court directed counsel appearing via video-link to attend in person at Islamabad for proper consideration of arguments. Additionally, the Court appointed amici curiae to submit written briefs and assist in adjudicating the constitutional and legal validity of the subject provision. The Court did not settle the substantive legal questions in this interim order, instead adjourning the proceedings to 4 January 2024 for full hearing and appointment of legal assistance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether amici curiae may be appointed by the Court to assist on questions regarding the constitutionality and legality of Section 232(2) of the Elections Act, 2017?
  • Whether the Supreme Court may require counsel appearing via video-link to appear in person in matters of significant constitutional importance?
  • Whether an opportunity must be granted to an unrepresented party to engage counsel or provide proper authorization to a representative during constitutional proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Confcius Imam Qasrani vs Sardar Mir Badshah Khan Qaisarani &2024 SCP 117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-25Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali Zia Khan vs The Arbitration Council through its Chairman etc.2024 IHC 192, 2025 CLC 22 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-27Read full judgment →
• Sarang vs The State and another2024 PCRLJ 1151 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-14
  anti-terrorism courttransfer of casejurisdictionterrorismunnatural offencecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur, which dismissed an application for the transfer of a case involving an offence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 to a court of ordinary jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the alleged unnatural offence, committed by a teacher against a minor during tuition, constituted terrorism within the meaning of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The Sindh High Court held that the element of terrorism was missing, as the act lacked the requisite design, purpose, or nexus contemplated under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 to terrorize the public or coerce government authorities, and was merely a private crime. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the case was ordered to be transferred to the ordinary court having jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that an offence, however grave or gruesome, does not constitute terrorism unless it is committed with the specific design or objective specified in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unnatural offence committed by a teacher against a minor during tuition constitute terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Whether an offence lacking the design or objective specified in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 is triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Can a case pending before an Anti-Terrorism Court be transferred to a court of ordinary jurisdiction if the element of terrorism is missing?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqlain Abbass @ Ayan S/O Nawab Hussain Shah vs The State2024 SHC 1160 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-21
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauserule of consistencyqatl-bis-sababdiyatco-accused statementfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant seeking release in FIR No. 1098 of 2023 registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Sachal Police Station, Karachi, subsequently challaned under sections 322, 201, 202, and 371-A/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail where the final charge attracts Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and where co-accused facing similar allegations have been granted bail. The Sindh High Court held that since the offense under Section 322 falls outside the prohibitory clause and lacks exceptional circumstances to justify continued detention, coupled with the applicability of the rule of consistency due to bail granted to co-accused, the applicant has made out a case for further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that offenses punishable primarily with Diyat falling outside the prohibitory clause warrant bail unless exceptional circumstances are established, and that statements of co-accused implicating another during police investigations require independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offense punishable under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused similarly situated has been admitted to post-arrest bail?
  • Is a statement made by a co-accused to the police during investigation admissible in evidence against another accused without strong corroboration?
  • When can the detention of an accused be justified pending trial for an offense where the primary liability is Diyat?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib S/o Aurangzeb vs Government of Sindh and Others2024 SHC 514 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-23
  Sindh Payment of Wages ActWorkmen's CompensationConsent OrderConstitutional PetitionEmployment DisputeRegularization of Service
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner challenged an order passed by the Commissioner for Workers' Compensation and Authority Under The Sindh Payment of Wages Act recalling an earlier ex parte order that had allowed the Petitioner's application under Section 15 of the Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015 and awarded compensation against the private respondents. The core legal question involved the resolution of monetary claims and employment grievances between a former employee and the establishment. The Sindh High Court disposed of the petition based on a consented settlement between the parties. The court held that the respondents shall issue a regular employment letter to the petitioner, and in return, the petitioner shall withdraw his applications under Section 15 of the Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015 and for Workmen's Compensation. The key principle laid down is that constitutional petitions concerning employment and monetary claims can be amicably resolved and disposed of on the basis of a lawful compromise and consent between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition challenging the recall of an ex parte order under the Sindh Payment of Wages Act be disposed of on the basis of a consent settlement between the parties?
  • Whether an employee can withdraw applications under the Sindh Payment of Wages Act and Workmen's Compensation in lieu of regular appointment in an establishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Saniyal Ali S/O Muhammad vs The State2024 SHC 810 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-11
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausecriminal breach of trustcheatingdelay in FIRcivil disputebail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from an order declining pre-arrest bail to the applicant in Crime No.12/2024 registered under Section 406/420/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning a dispute over sugarcane molasses and financial transactions. The core legal question involved whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed for offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where mala fide and delayed FIR registration are alleged. The Sindh High Court held that since the offenses do not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497(1) and the punishment is less than ten years, granting bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, particularly where civil remedies are being pursued through criminal proceedings and delay in lodging the FIR suggests potential malice. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, laying down the principle that criminal provisions cannot be utilized merely for the recovery of civil debts and that non-prohibitory offenses merit bail as a general rule.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted as a rule when an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can criminal proceedings under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be utilized as a substitute for civil remedies for the recovery of money?
  • Does an unexplained delay of several years in lodging an FIR create a strong ground for suspecting malafide and granting pre-arrest bail?
  • What is the distinction in the exercise of judicial discretion between bailable and non-bailable offenses under Sections 496 and 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sania Zehra & Atif Ali vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1202 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-30Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Sabzoi vs The State2024 SHC 710 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-08
  appellate jurisdictioncriminal revisionsubstantial sentenceSessions Court jurisdictionSindh Arms Actsentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot, which returned the applicant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The applicant had been convicted under Section 23(i)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, by an Assistant Sessions Judge and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. The Sessions Judge declined to hear the appeal, reasoning that the sentence exceeded four years, thereby necessitating an appeal to the High Court. The core legal question was whether a sentence of four years imprisonment plus a fine constitutes a sentence exceeding four years for the purposes of appellate jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court held that the fine is an additional punishment and cannot be calculated as part of the substantial sentence of imprisonment. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, ruling that the appeal was competent before the Sessions Court. The principle laid down is that for determining appellate jurisdiction under Section 408(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, only the substantial sentence of imprisonment is considered, excluding fines.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sentence of four years imprisonment plus a fine exceed a four-year sentence for the purpose of determining appellate jurisdiction under Section 408(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should a fine be included when calculating the duration of a sentence to determine the appropriate appellate forum?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanam Javed vs Special Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, Gujranwala, etc.2024 LHC 3408, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1226, 2025 PCRLJ 148 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-10
  physical remandcriminal revisionmalicious prosecutionfundamental rightsdouble jeopardyAnti-Terrorism Courtaccomplice statementpolice highhandedness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of physical remand passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Gujranwala, against the petitioner, who was implicated in a case based on an accomplice's statement. The core legal questions concerned the court's revisional jurisdiction over expired remand orders, the legality of repeatedly implicating an accused in multiple jurisdictions for the same alleged act, and the validity of evidence procured through coercion. The Court held that its revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a corrective duty to prevent manifest illegality, regardless of whether the specific remand period has expired. It found the prosecution's repeated implication of the petitioner in multiple cases for the same incident malicious, violating fundamental rights under Articles 4, 9, 10, and 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the Court set aside the remand order and discharged the petitioner, establishing that remand must not be granted mechanically and that evidence obtained in violation of statutory procedures, such as Section 337(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is inadmissible.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the period of physical remand has already expired?
  • Does the repeated implication of an accused in multiple criminal cases for the same alleged act violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy?
  • Is an accomplice's statement admissible if it is recorded in violation of the proviso to Section 337(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be remanded to police custody in a mechanical manner without establishing a specific, important purpose for the investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanam Javaid Khan through attorney Rubina Javaid vs Returning Officer2024 LHC 1092 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-21Read full judgment →
• Sanam Javaid Khan (Presently confined in Kot Lakhpat Jail, Lahore)2024 SCP 111, 2024 SCMR 819, 2024 SCP 36, 2025 PLJ SC 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-26
  nomination paperselection expensesjoint bank accountultra viresdelegated legislationreturning officer inquiryfundamental right to contest election
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the High Court's order upholding the rejection of the petitioner's nomination papers for election to constituency PP-150, Lahore. The nomination papers were initially rejected by the Returning Officer and the Election Tribunal, and subsequently by the High Court, on two main grounds: first, that the bank account declared for election expenses was a joint account rather than a single account, and second, that her signatures and thumb impression on the nomination papers, Form-B, and affidavit were not genuine due to lack of attestation by the Superintendent Jail. The core legal questions involved the legality of Rule 51 of the Election Rules, 2017 regarding joint bank accounts vis-à-vis Section 60(2)(b) of the Elections Act, 2017, and the scope of inquiry by the Returning Officer under Section 62(9). The Supreme Court held that Rule 51, insofar as it prohibits joint signatory accounts, is ultra vires the Elections Act, 2017 as it travels beyond the rule-making power. Furthermore, the Court held that a candidate is permitted to use an existing account and rectify any defects, and that non-verification by jail authorities does not render signatures invalid under Section 62(9). Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the nomination papers were deemed accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Rule 51 of the Election Rules, 2017 prohibiting joint signatory accounts for election expenses is ultra vires Section 60(2)(b) of the Elections Act, 2017?
  • Can nomination papers be rejected solely on the ground that the bank account declared for election expenses is a joint account?
  • Does the scope of summary inquiry by a Returning Officer under Section 62(9) of the Elections Act, 2017 permit the rejection of nomination papers due to lack of attestation of signatures by jail authorities for an under-trial prisoner?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah Gondal vs Capital Development Authority and others2024 IHC 248 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-06Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah and others vs The State etc.2024 LHC 631, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 592, 2024 PCRLJ 1623 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-22
  criminal appealmurderidentification paradereasonable doubtchain of custodyforensic evidenceacquittalinquest report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant for murder and house trespass under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account, the validity of the identification parade, and the integrity of the forensic evidence chain of custody. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court identified significant discrepancies, including an ante-timed FIR evidenced by the inquest report, a flawed joint identification parade, and a broken chain of custody regarding the recovered weapon and crime empties. Furthermore, medical evidence contradicted the eyewitness accounts, undermining their credibility. Reaffirming the principle that the benefit of every reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The criminal revision seeking enhancement of the sentence was consequently dismissed. This judgment emphasizes that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inconsistency between the time of the inquest report and the FIR registration create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's timeline?
  • Is a joint identification parade involving multiple accused persons legally valid?
  • Does a failure to maintain the chain of custody for crime scene evidence render forensic reports unreliable?
  • Can medical evidence alone be used to identify the culprits in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Samina Alvi & Another vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 1274 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-22Read full judgment →
• Sami Pharmaceuticals Private Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 712 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-11Read full judgment →
• Sami Jamal s/o Shahid Jamal vs Objector2024 SHC 1396 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-24Read full judgment →
• Sameeullah S/O Muhammad Younus vs The Sate2024 SHC 760 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-15
  post-arrest bailtrial delaywitness examinationstatutory grounds for bailjudicial direction
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, Sameeullah, filed a bail application under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking relief in connection with Crime No. 76 of 2020, registered under Sections 302, 397, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had previously dismissed his bail application, citing a lack of fresh grounds. The applicant contended that he had been incarcerated for a significant period and that the prosecution witness, Muhammad Hammad, had only partially testified. The core legal question concerned whether the applicant was entitled to bail due to the delay in the trial proceedings and the failure to conclude the examination of witnesses as previously directed by the High Court. The Court, noting that partial compliance with its earlier directive had occurred, disposed of the bail application by issuing a peremptory direction to the trial court to examine the remaining witnesses within one month. The Court held that failure to comply with this timeline would necessitate administrative intervention, while preserving the applicant's right to seek bail on all grounds, including statutory ones, should the trial remain delayed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bail application be disposed of with a direction to the trial court to expedite witness examination?
  • Does partial compliance with a previous court order regarding trial timelines justify the dismissal of a bail application?
  • What is the remedy for an accused when a trial court fails to comply with a High Court directive to examine witnesses within a specified period?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Shah S/O Haroon Shah vs The State & Others2024 SHC · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-19
  Justice of PeaceFIR registrationcognizable offenseSection 22-A CrPCcriminal investigationpolice dutySection 154 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application challenged an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which directed the police to record a statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned the scope of the Justice of Peace’s authority under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the registration of an FIR. The Court held that the Justice of Peace’s role is limited to verifying whether a cognizable offense is disclosed in the complaint; they are not empowered to conduct a full-fledged investigation or fact-finding inquiry, as that would usurp the function of the police. The Court emphasized that the police are statutorily obligated to register an FIR upon receiving information of a cognizable offense without conducting a preliminary inquiry into the truth or falsity of the allegations. The key principle laid down is that the Justice of Peace serves as a supervisory mechanism to redress grievances where police refuse to register reports, rather than acting as an investigative agency, and police must prioritize the registration of cognizable offenses.

  Questions settled

  • What is the extent of the power of a Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the registration of an FIR?
  • Is an Officer Incharge of a Police Station authorized to conduct an inquiry into the truth or falsity of information before registering an FIR for a cognizable offense?
  • Can a Justice of Peace conduct a fact-finding exercise or full-fledged investigation before directing the registration of an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Hamid vs The State and another2024 LHC 3779, 2024 YLR 2359, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1141 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-02
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controladmissibility of confessionvicarious liabilityfurther inquiryright to tradecorroboration of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, who was implicated in a narcotics case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, based solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused. The co-accused, apprehended with narcotics and a drone, alleged he purchased the drone from the petitioner's shop. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could be denied bail based on the uncorroborated confessional statement of a co-accused and the mere sale of a lawful product (a drone) used by the co-accused for criminal activities. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, noting that the co-accused's statement to the police is inadmissible under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and lacks independent corroboration. The Court emphasized that the sale of a lawful item does not establish criminal liability for the buyer's subsequent illegal acts, absent evidence of knowledge or connivance. The principle laid down is that at the bail stage, the prosecution must present independent incriminating material beyond a co-accused's statement to establish prima facie involvement, and lawful business activities are constitutionally protected.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of a co-accused's confessional statement made to the police?
  • Is the sale of a lawful item, subsequently used by the purchaser for criminal activity, sufficient to establish criminal liability for the seller?
  • Does the statutory prohibition on possession of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 extend to a person who has no conscious or active possession of the contraband?
  • At the bail stage, what is the evidentiary value of a co-accused's confession made during police investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Akram Raja vs Returning Officer and others2024 CLC 1094 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-12Read full judgment →
• Salman Akram Raja vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Chief2024 LHC 2466, 2025 CLC 56 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
• Salma Memon vs Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, through Managing2024 PLC (C.S.) 410 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-13
  wrongful dismissalmedical leaveinternal company rulesreinstatementback benefitsservice lawgender discrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a long-serving employee of Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, challenged her dismissal from service following her inability to return from ex-Pakistan leave due to medical reasons. The core legal question was whether the respondent company acted lawfully in dismissing the petitioner for unauthorized absence, despite her submission of medical certificates, and whether the company violated its own internal Sick Leave Rules. The Court held that the dismissal was unlawful, finding that the company acted in sheer hastiness and failed to follow the mandatory procedures prescribed in its internal handbook regarding sick leave, which provided a structured mechanism for granting medical leave and assessing fitness. The Court emphasized that the Chief Medical Officer exceeded his authority by unilaterally rejecting medical evidence based on travel capability rather than adhering to the established leave policy. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal order, ordered the petitioner's reinstatement with full back benefits, and directed an inquiry into the respondent's treatment of female employees.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer dismiss an employee for unauthorized absence when the employee has submitted medical evidence that qualifies for leave under the company's internal rules?
  • Does a Chief Medical Officer have the authority to reject a medical certificate on the basis that an employee is fit to travel, contrary to the specific provisions of the company's sick leave policy?
  • Is the dismissal of an employee valid if the employer fails to follow the mandatory procedure for granting medical leave as prescribed in the company's internal handbook?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad & others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 384 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-06Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 644, 2025 PLD Sindh 138 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-30Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin Ahmed vs Khurram Sultan Abbasi & others2024 SHC 988, 2025 YLR 652 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-27Read full judgment →
• Sakhib Zar vs M/s K-Electric Limited & others2024 SCP 281, 2024 SCMR 1722, 2024 PLC 278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-10
  industrial misconductabsence without leavequantum of punishmentNational Industrial Relations Commissionemployer prerogativereinstatementunauthorized absence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the appellate order of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The petitioner, a Semi-Skilled Lineman and union member, remained absent from duty beyond his sanctioned leave and was dismissed after ex-parte disciplinary proceedings for misconduct under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. A Single Member of the NIRC set aside the termination and ordered reinstatement on compassionate grounds, noting the absence was only fifteen days, but the Full Bench of the NIRC allowed the employer's appeal and restored the dismissal. The core legal question concerned whether an employee's unauthorized absence for more than ten days constitutes statutory misconduct and whether forums can mitigate punishment when guilt is established. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that absence without leave for over ten days is explicitly defined as misconduct under Standing Order 15(3)(e) of the Ordinance, and once established, the quantum of punishment falls within the employer's prerogative, precluding tribunals from rewriting statutory thresholds or granting arbitrary relief based on sympathy.

  Questions settled

  • Does absence from duty for more than ten days without leave constitute statutory misconduct under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can a tribunal or court rewrite the statutory period defining misconduct under labour laws on compassionate grounds?
  • Is the determination of the quantum of punishment the sole prerogative of the employer once an employee's guilt of misconduct is established?
  • Under what circumstances can a court or tribunal interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded by an employer for misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Hussain vs Addl. District Judge, etc2024 LHC 5579, 2025 PLD Lahore 332, 2025 PLJ Lahore 244 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-27Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 350, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1239 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-25
  police recruitmentcriminal antecedentsacquittal by compromisedisciplined forcecharacter verificationcivil service appointmentprobationary period
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the refusal of the Sindh Police Department to appoint the petitioner as a Police Constable, despite his selection, due to his involvement in past criminal cases resulting in acquittal via compromise. The core legal question was whether the police department could deny appointment to a candidate with criminal antecedents who had been acquitted. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the police force is a disciplined body requiring personnel of unimpeachable character. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court affirmed that the appointing authority possesses the prerogative to evaluate a candidate's character and antecedents, and acquittal does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment. The Court emphasized that Section 15 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, must be read alongside Section 6(3), which mandates satisfactory character verification during probation. Consequently, the Court ruled that the department acted within its discretion in withdrawing the offer letter, as the petitioner’s criminal history rendered him unsuitable for a disciplined force, and the judiciary should not interfere with the executive's assessment of such suitability.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal in a criminal case automatically entitle a candidate to appointment in a disciplined police force?
  • Can the appointing authority withdraw an offer of appointment based on a candidate's past criminal record despite a subsequent acquittal?
  • Must Section 15 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, be read in conjunction with Section 6(3) regarding the verification of a civil servant's character during probation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs P.O Sindh & others2024 SHC 486 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Anwar Sunny & others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1338 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-10
  Police Investigation WingExecutive CadreService MattersPolice Rules 1934Jurisdiction of High CourtArticle 212Terms and Conditions of Service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by directly recruited Inspectors (Investigation) BPS-16 of the Sindh Police, seeking integration into the Executive Cadre, issuance of a seniority list, and declaration of their status as Gazetted Class-II officers. The petitioners argued that, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gul Hassan Jatoi, the police force is an indivisible entity, and they should be eligible for transfer and posting within the Executive Branch. The core legal question was whether officers of the Investigation Wing could be transferred to the Executive Branch under the Police Act, 1861, and Police Rules, 1934. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the transfer of investigation officers to the Executive Branch is not supported by the governing statutes or the cited precedent. The Court further determined that because the petitioners' appointment letters specifically restricted their service to the Investigation Unit, their grievances regarding transfer and posting constitute service matters. Consequently, the Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Can officers of the Investigation Wing of the Police Department be transferred to the Executive Branch under the Police Act, 1861?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to adjudicate disputes regarding the transfer and posting of police officers?
  • Are appointment letters that restrict police officers to the Investigation Unit binding regarding their future transfer and posting?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs The State2024 LHC 6159 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-27
  rapechild witnesscriminal appealDNA evidenceFIR delaysexual assaultconvictionQanun-e-Shahadat Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and life sentence of the appellant for rape and kidnapping under sections 376 and 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the victim’s testimony as a child witness, the impact of delayed FIR registration in sexual assault cases, and the necessity of DNA evidence for a rape conviction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The Court held that a child witness is competent to testify if they pass the rationality test, and a conviction may rest on their sole testimony if it inspires confidence. Furthermore, the Court ruled that delay in reporting sexual assault is understandable given societal sensitivities and does not inherently weaken the prosecution's case. Finally, the Court established that DNA testing is not a mandatory legal requirement for proving rape when other corroborative evidence, such as medical reports and consistent ocular testimony, is sufficient to establish guilt. The judgment reaffirms that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not invalidate the core prosecution case.

  Questions settled

  • Is a conviction for rape sustainable in the absence of DNA evidence?
  • Can a conviction be based on the sole testimony of a child witness?
  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR regarding sexual assault necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the acquittal of co-accused a ground for setting aside the conviction of the main accused when evidence is distinguishable?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs The Returning Officer, Na-174, Rahim Yar Khan and 042024 LHC 69, 2024 PLJ Lahore 88 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sajid-Ur-Rehman vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary, Islamabad and another2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 120 · Federal Service Tribunal
  civil servanttransferplace of postingElection Commission of Pakistanservice tribunalinterim injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a Data Entry Operator (BS-14) employed by the Election Commission of Pakistan, challenged his transfer from Islamabad to Dera Ghazi Khan through original and appellate orders. He contended that his initial advertisement and appointment were specifically for Islamabad, invoking the first proviso to Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which restricts the transfer of civil servants recruited for a particular area or region. The core legal question was whether the appellant was recruited specifically for a particular area so as to be protected from transfer outside that station under Section 10. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the initial place of posting mentioned in the advertisement referred only to the first place of employment and did not restrict subsequent transfers, as the appointment letter contained no explicit restriction limiting his service to Islamabad. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the transfer orders, ruling that transfer is an administrative prerogative based on service exigencies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant appointed through an advertisement mentioning a specific place of posting is immune from transfer outside that station under the first proviso to Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does an initial place of posting mentioned in a job advertisement restrict the competent authority from transferring an employee to another station?
  • Is transfer of a government servant considered an administrative prerogative subject to service exigencies?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Mehmood vs District Judge, Mirpur and others2024 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 63 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-06-16Read full judgment →
• Sajid Hussain and others vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary2024 PLC (C.S.) 421 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-20
  locus poenitentiaepast and closed transactionvested rightsaudi alteram partemprocedural fairnessdouble jeopardyselection grade
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order issued by the Secretary, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad, which withdrew the benefit of a presumptive selection scale previously granted to the petitioners and ordered the recovery of alleged excess payments. The core legal question was whether the respondent-Board could reopen and rescind a financial benefit that had already been implemented, audited, and settled as a past and closed transaction, particularly after the petitioners had already been penalized for the initial irregularity. The Court held that the impugned order was illegal and without lawful authority. Relying on the principle of locus poenitentiae, the Court determined that once an order has taken effect and created vested rights, it cannot be rescinded to the detriment of those rights. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the matter had attained finality after the Public Accounts Committee settled the audit objections, and double jeopardy principles prevented the authorities from penalizing the petitioners again for the same issue. The Court affirmed that administrative authorities cannot arbitrarily interfere with settled financial matters without procedural fairness and adherence to the principle of audi alteram partem.

  Questions settled

  • Can an administrative authority rescind an order that has already taken effect and created vested rights?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent the reopening of a financial matter that has been settled as a past and closed transaction?
  • Can an authority impose a second penalty for the same irregularity after a previous penalty has attained finality?
  • Is an administrative order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing sustainable under the principles of procedural fairness?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Aslam vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir2024 SC AJK · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-11-29Read full judgment →
• Sajf Shujaat & others vs Government of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1368 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-17
  regularization of contract employeesseniorityretroactive senioritypromotionad-hoc appointmentcivil servantsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, initially appointed on a contract basis as Naib Qasid, sought a declaration from the Sindh High Court recognizing their prior contract service for seniority and promotion to Junior Clerk BS-11. The core legal question revolved around whether seniority and promotion can be reckoned retroactively from the date of initial contract or ad-hoc appointment, or prospectively from the date of regular appointment under the applicable civil servant laws. The court held that seniority and promotion are not absolute rights and must be determined in accordance with the relevant rules, explicitly ruling that contractual service cannot be considered for seniority, which must be reckoned strictly from the date of regular appointment. The court established the principle that ad-hoc and contract appointments cannot be regularized retrospectively for the purpose of seniority, and dismissed the constitutional petition as non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can the seniority of an employee be reckoned from the date of their initial induction in service as an ad-hoc or contract appointment?
  • Whether promotion and seniority are absolute rights under civil servant law?
  • Can contractual or ad-hoc service be considered for calculating seniority and promotion?
  • Does the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013 permit the retroactive regularization of employees for seniority purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Saira Rubab Nasir and another vs The State and another2024 IHC 86 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-22
  pre-arrest bailcorruptioncriminal investigationtentative assessmentfurther inquiryextortionbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition concerns a request for confirmation of pre-arrest bail by two employees of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC) accused of extorting 25% of health allowance arrears from fellow employees. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of corruption and the prosecution's claim that the petitioners were influential and could tamper with evidence. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, confirming the ad-interim order previously granted. The court reasoned that there was no documentary evidence linking the petitioners to the alleged extortion, and the petitioners held no policy-making authority regarding the release of the allowances. Furthermore, the court noted that out of 133 employees examined, only two made allegations, and the prosecution failed to demonstrate a necessity for arrest or a risk of absconsion. The court established the principle that at the pre-arrest bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the record is permissible, and where the prosecution fails to provide substantial evidence, the case warrants further inquiry rather than incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of documentary evidence linking an accused to an alleged crime warrants the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the fact that only a small fraction of witnesses have implicated an accused in a corruption case justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is a deep appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of deciding a pre-arrest bail petition?
  Read full judgment →