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.

• Nawab Jangaiz Khan Marri vs Mir Naseebullah Khan and others2024 SCP 179, 2024 SCMR 1372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-22
  election disputere-pollingabnormal voter turnoutElection Commission of Pakistandeclaration of poll voidsummary powersgeneral elections
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges an order of the Election Commission of Pakistan directing re-polling at four polling stations in a provincial assembly constituency due to an unnatural and abnormal voter turnout. The core legal question concerns the scope and exercise of powers by the Election Commission under Section 9 of the Elections Act, 2017 to declare a poll void and order re-polling based on grave illegalities and apparent facts without conducting a full-fledged trial. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Election Commission possesses summary powers to regulate its own procedure under Section 9 and can order re-polling when faced with abnormal voter turnout and apparent irregularities that materially affect election results. The key principle laid down is that the Election Commission, upon being satisfied from facts apparent on record and after necessary inquiry, can validly order re-polls to ensure elections are conducted honestly, justly, and fairly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Election Commission of Pakistan has the power to order re-polling under Section 9 of the Elections Act, 2017 without conducting a full-fledged trial?
  • Does an abnormally high and unrealistic voter turnout at specific polling stations constitute a ground for declaring a poll void and ordering a re-poll?
  • What is the nature and extent of the summary powers exercised by the Election Commission of Pakistan when regulating its own procedure under Section 9 of the Elections Act, 2017?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab alias Tharo Gadani and another vs The State2024 MLD 110 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-16
  qatl-i-amddeath sentence conversionunproven motivemitigating circumstancemurder convictionocular testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction of the appellants under Section 302(b) read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the qatl-i-amd of two deceased persons, resulting in a death sentence on two counts by the trial court. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully proved its case and whether the death sentence was warranted given that the alleged motive remained unproven. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants through reliable broad-daylight ocular testimony, medical evidence, and explanation of delay, which went largely unchallenged on merits as counsel did not press the appeal on merits. However, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove the motive alleged in the FIR against the appellants. The ratio laid down is that while ocular and medical evidence is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction, the failure of the prosecution to prove the asserted motive acts as a mitigating circumstance, justifying the conversion of a death sentence into imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an asserted motive act as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained on the basis of broad-daylight ocular testimony supported by medical evidence?
  • Whether unproven motive can react against the imposition of the death penalty in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Ali vs Secretary, Revenue Division/Chairman, FBR and others2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 145 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2022-11-28
  service appealminor penaltywithholding of incrementscumulative effectinefficiencyGovernment Servants (E&D) Rules 1973disciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenged a minor penalty of withholding four increments with cumulative effect imposed upon the appellant for inefficiency. The core legal question was whether Rule 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 permits the withholding of multiple increments and whether such a penalty can have a cumulative effect. The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty. The Tribunal held that the rule, which authorizes the withholding of 'increment' for a specific period, does not restrict the penalty to a single increment, nor does it prohibit cumulative effect. The court reasoned that the term 'increment' denotes 'any' increment, allowing for penalties extending beyond a single year. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that unlike the subsequent 2020 Rules, the 1973 Rules contain no explicit bar against cumulative effects. Consequently, the Tribunal found the penalty commensurate with the proven charge of inefficiency and declined to interfere with the departmental orders.

  Questions settled

  • Does Rule 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 permit the withholding of more than one increment?
  • Can a penalty of withholding increments under the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 be imposed with cumulative effect?
  • Does the term 'increment' in Rule 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 imply only a single increment?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Ali vs Director HRSPL Limited and others2024 PHC 30 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-23
  Area Sales Managerworkman definitionwrit jurisdictiontermination of servicefull and final settlementmisconductfake degreemanagerial capacity
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the termination of his services as an Area Sales Manager. The core legal question was whether an employee designated as an Area Sales Manager, performing supervisory and managerial duties, qualifies as a 'workman' entitled to protection under labor laws, and whether the High Court should adjudicate disputed factual claims regarding the nature of a financial settlement in writ jurisdiction. The Court held that the petitioner’s duties were predominantly managerial and administrative, thus excluding him from the definition of a 'workman.' Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the NIRC's decision. Additionally, the Court ruled that it cannot resolve disputed questions of fact, such as whether a received payment constituted a 'full and final settlement' or outstanding salary, particularly when the termination was based on proven misconduct, including the submission of a fake academic degree. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Area Sales Manager performing supervisory and managerial duties qualify as a 'workman' under labor laws?
  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding 'full and final settlement' of employment dues in writ jurisdiction?
  • Is a leave granting order of the Supreme Court a binding precedent?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Ali and others vs National Highway Authority (NHA) and others.2024 IHC 240 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-11-29
  regularization of employeesstatutory bodyhuman resource policyvested rightscontractual employeesseniorityNational Highway Authorityservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns execution and writ petitions regarding the regularization of contractual employees within the National Highway Authority (NHA). Following previous litigation where initial regularization attempts were declared void, the Supreme Court directed the NHA to address the issue through its competent authority. The core legal question was whether the NHA's subsequent policy, which created a 'National Highway Special Service Cadre' (NSSC) to regularize these employees without disturbing the seniority of existing regular staff, complied with the law and the Supreme Court's mandate. The Court held that the NHA, as a statutory body, possesses the authority under the National Highway Authority Act, 1991 to frame human resource policies, including the creation of new cadres. The Court found that the NHA's decision to regularize long-serving contractual employees through a scrutinized process, while balancing the rights of existing regular employees via a separate cadre, was a valid policy exercise. The key principle laid down is that while contractual employees have no vested right to regularization, statutory bodies have the discretion to formulate human resource policies to resolve long-standing employment disputes, provided such policies do not violate statutory frameworks or infringe upon the vested rights of others.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statutory body have the authority to regularize contractual employees through a newly created service cadre?
  • Can the executive board of a statutory body override the recruitment procedure prescribed by its own service rules to regularize long-serving contractual employees?
  • Do contractual employees have a vested right to regularization based on the efflux of time?
  • Is a policy decision by a statutory body regarding human resource management subject to judicial interference if it does not violate vested rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Tariq and another vs The State etc2024 LHC 3326, 2025 PCRLJ 627 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-25
  post-arrest baildead meatPunjab Food Authority ActPunjab Animals Slaughter Control Actoffence against societyprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving the transportation of unverified and unfit meat under the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011. The core legal question is whether bail should be granted to accused persons charged with transporting a large quantity of dead meat, which constitutes an offence against society, even though the offences do not strictly fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the offences are grave and pose a serious threat to public health, and that offences not falling within the prohibitory clause do not entitle the accused to bail as a matter of right when the acts are detrimental to society. The court laid down the principle that the gravity of the offence and its impact on public health constitute exceptional grounds to decline bail, notwithstanding that the punishment does not fall within the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be refused in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause when the act is considered against the society?
  • Can the court presume the commission of an offence under the Punjab Animals Slaughter Control Act, 1963 regarding meat found without a slaughter-house stamp?
  • Does the absence of sale and purchase records during the transportation of meat establish prima facie criminal liability?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Mushtaq Abbasi vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2023 LHC 4155, 2024 CLC 171 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-19Read full judgment →
• Naveed Ali Siyal vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 376 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
• National Tiles Ceramics Limited vs Sui Southern Gas Company Limited2023 SHC 1024, 2024 MLD 1386 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-25Read full judgment →
• National Rural Support Program (NRSP), etc vs National Industrial Relation2024 LHC 4543, 2024 PLJ Lahore 876, 2025 PLC 54 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-24
  Industrial RelationsTrans-provincial establishmentNIRC jurisdictionWorkman definitionNon-profit organizationIndustrial disputeStanding Orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged concurrent decisions by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) regarding the status of a non-profit organization (NPO) registered under the Companies Ordinance 1984. The core legal question was whether such an entity constitutes an "establishment" under the Industrial Relations Act 2012 and whether a dismissed employee of said entity qualifies as a "workman" entitled to seek redress under the Act. The Court held that the petitioner, being a trans-provincial entity employing workmen, falls within the definition of an "establishment" under Section 2(x) of the Industrial Relations Act 2012. Consequently, the Court affirmed the NIRC's jurisdiction, ruling that the respondent, as a dismissed workman, was entitled to pursue his grievance under the Act. The key principle laid down is that the Industrial Relations Act 2012 possesses an overriding effect by virtue of Section 87, and an organization’s status as an NPO does not exempt it from being classified as an "establishment" if it employs workmen for the purpose of carrying on business.

  Questions settled

  • Does a non-profit organization registered under Section 42 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 qualify as an 'establishment' under the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
  • Does the Industrial Relations Act 2012 have an overriding effect regarding the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission over labor disputes?
  • Does an office attendant or telephone operator qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act 2012 and the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• National Highway Authority, Islamabad through its Project Director Zafar2024 LHC 2886, 2024 CLC 1246 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-03Read full judgment →
• National Highway Authority, etc vs Mehmood ul Hassan, etc2024 LHC 4456 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-21Read full judgment →
• National Highway Authority vs Messrs Kac-Ucc JV and others2024 CLD 858, 2024 CLC 1514 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
• National Highway Authority through its Chairman vs Mubashar Hussain2024 LHC 4940 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• National Highway Authority through Director vs Bashiran Bibi and others2024 MLD 1590 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• National Highway Authority (NHA) vs M/s Sardar Muhammad Ashraf D.2024 IHC 66, 2024 PLD Islamabad 18, 2024 CLD 220 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-03Read full judgment →
• National Database and Registration Authority vs Khan Agha and six others2024 LHC 3142 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-13Read full judgment →
• National Command Authority Foundation (Ncaf) Through its authorized2024 LHC 2365, 2024 CLD 938 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• National Bank ofPakistan through its President, Head Office, Karachi vs Roz-ud-Din and another2024 SCP 337, 2025 SCMR 160, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-12
  service tribunaldepartmental inquirydismissal from serviceproportionality of punishmentdiscriminationconstitutional petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which partly allowed a constitutional petition filed by the respondent bank officer against his dismissal from service and modified the penalty to downgradation by one step in his pay scale. The core legal question involved whether the major penalty of dismissal from service was proportionate to the allegations of omissions and irregularities regarding ATM cash handling, and whether similarly placed employees could be subjected to discriminatory treatment. The Supreme Court held that the punishment of dismissal was harsh, disproportionate to the minor role assigned, and discriminatory compared to other employees facing the same allegations who received lesser penalties. The Court laid down the principles that penalties must commensurate with the magnitude of the guilt under the principles of safe administration of justice, and that similarly placed employees cannot be treated discriminately in violation of constitutional guarantees of equality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the penalty of dismissal from service is proportionate to minor omissions regarding ATM cash handling where the main accused has confessed guilt?
  • Does treating similarly placed bank employees differently in disciplinary proceedings violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can an employee be awarded a major penalty of dismissal from service in the absence of direct charges of misconduct, fraud, or embezzlement?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs M/s Salman Noman Enterprises Ltd. etc2024 LHC 3125 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-13Read full judgment →
• Nek Rehman alias Zeeshan vs The State2024 YLR 2783 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-17
  narcoticssafe custodyburden of proofpolice witnessesjail appeallife imprisonmentCharas
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal was filed against the judgment of the Special Court-II (C.N.S.) Karachi, which convicted the appellant under Section 6/9(c) read with Sections 14 and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case was that the appellant was apprehended while driving a vehicle from which 22 kilograms of Charas were recovered. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated, that there were material contradictions in the evidence, and that the prosecution failed to prove safe custody of the contraband. The High Court, upon reassessing the evidence, dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established safe custody and transmission of the narcotics through consistent testimonies of police witnesses. It was laid down that under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, once recovery from a vehicle under the control of the accused is proven, the burden shifts to the accused to show lack of knowledge or possession, which the appellant failed to discharge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police witnesses can be relied upon to sustain a conviction in a narcotics case in the absence of independent private witnesses?
  • How does the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 affect the burden of proof once recovery of contraband is established?
  • Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 validate search and recovery operations conducted solely by police officials?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan through President, Karachi vs Sajjad Ali Kakakhel2024 SCMR 12 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-11
  proforma promotionsupersessionservice ruleslachesconstitutional petitionretirement benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, whereby a constitutional petition filed by the respondent challenging his non-promotion and seeking proforma promotion was allowed. The core legal questions relate to the competence of granting proforma promotion in the absence of enabling service rules, the effect of inordinate delay and laches in challenging supersession, and the maintainability of a constitutional petition by a retired employee who has already received all retirement benefits. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in granting relief as the relevant service rules of the National Bank of Pakistan contained no provision for proforma promotion, the respondent's challenge to his supersession suffered from gross laches, and he had already retired and received his terminal benefits. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that a writ or order directing proforma promotion cannot be issued where the applicable service rules do not provide for it, and that belated challenges to supersession raised after retirement are legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court direct the grant of proforma promotion when the relevant service rules contain no provision for it?
  • Whether a constitutional petition challenging supersession suffers from laches if filed years after the supersession and after the employee's retirement?
  • Is a retired employee who has accepted all terminal dues entitled to seek promotion and associated service benefits through a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan through its President, Head Office, Karachi, etc.2024 SCP 127, 2024 SCMR 982, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 846, 2024 PLJ SC 478 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-13
  intra-court appealmaintainabilityLaw Reforms Ordinanceproceedings specificright of appealconstitutional petitionservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of an intra-court appeal (ICA) by the High Court on the ground of maintainability. The core legal question is whether the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 bars an ICA when the original proceedings provide for an appeal, revision, or review, even if that specific remedy was not available to one of the parties. The Supreme Court held that the proviso is proceedings-specific and not party-specific; thus, if the underlying proceedings provide for an appeal against the original order, an ICA is barred regardless of whether a particular party enjoyed the right to file such an appeal. The Court laid down the principle that the test for the maintainability of an ICA under the proviso focuses on the nature of the proceedings rather than the parity of appeal rights between the litigating parties, disapproving contrary views.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is proceedings-specific or party-specific?
  • Does the unavailability of an appeal remedy to one party under the underlying rules allow the filing of an intra-court appeal?
  • Whether an intra-court appeal is barred if the proceedings in which the original order was passed provide for at least one appeal, revision, or review?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan Limited vs M/s. Saudi Pak Industrial and2024 SHC 1168, 2025 CLD 270 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-29Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan and others vs M_s Premier Sugar Mills and Distillery Company Mardan2024 PHC 72, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 94, 2024 CLD 925 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-08Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan and 04 others vs Mumtaz Ahmad2024 LHC 2943 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-04Read full judgment →
• National Accountability Bureau vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2024 SHC 1362 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-18
  plea bargainNational Accountability Ordinancerecovered fundsstatutory interpretationconstitutional petitionpublic accountsembezzlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an Accountability Court order that rejected the National Accountability Bureau's (NAB) claim to retain 25% of funds recovered through a plea bargain in the M-6 Motorway Project embezzlement case. The core legal question was whether NAB possesses the statutory authority to deduct a percentage of recovered funds as its share based on internal SOPs or executive notifications. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that NAB lacks the legal authority to retain any portion of recovered funds. It affirmed that under Section 25(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the entirety of funds recovered through plea bargains must be transferred to the Federal or Provincial government or the concerned department. The Court emphasized that NAB is not a revenue-generating entity and that internal SOPs or administrative letters cannot override statutory mandates or constitutional provisions regarding public accounts and taxation. Consequently, the Court ruled that the deduction of 25% was illegal, upholding the trial court's order requiring the full remittance of recovered funds to the National Highway Authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Accountability Bureau have the legal authority to retain a percentage of funds recovered through plea bargains?
  • Is the National Accountability Bureau a revenue-generating entity entitled to deduct shares from recovered embezzled money?
  • Do internal SOPs or executive notifications authorizing the retention of recovered funds override the statutory provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Does the Accountability Court have the jurisdiction to order the transfer of the full amount recovered via plea bargain to the concerned government authority?
  Read full judgment →
• National Accountability Bureau vs Ch. Parvez Elahi etc2024 LHC 5682 · Lahore High Court · 2024-08-21Read full judgment →
• Nasreen Qadri and another vs Mian Bux and others2024 YLR 1079 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-13
  anti-encroachmentexecution proceedingsCode of Civil Procedurerejection of plaintsubsequent suitspecial tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment resolves a criminal miscellaneous application and a second appeal arising from a dispute over the alleged encroachment of a street or common passage. The core legal questions involve the propriety of an anti-encroachment tribunal invoking Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 during execution proceedings to revisit a settled controversy, and the maintainability of a subsequent suit seeking survey and demarcation. The Sindh High Court held that the tribunal erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to re-examine a matter already finalized up to the Supreme Court, and that the subsequent suit was rightly rejected as an attempt to circumvent the tribunal's execution proceedings. The court laid down the principle that special tribunals established under specific statutes cannot revisit settled matters or invoke extraneous procedural powers beyond their statutory mandate to obstruct execution of final orders, and that subsequent redundant suits aimed at circumventing lawful execution must be dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an anti-encroachment tribunal invoke Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to revisit a controversy already decided and upheld up to the Supreme Court?
  • Whether a subsequent civil suit seeking survey and demarcation is maintainable when its object is to circumvent execution proceedings before a special tribunal?
  • Does a special tribunal established under the Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act 2010 possess the power to re-examine settled title disputes during the execution of its removal orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir-Ul-Islam Khan and others vs Zakia Begum and others2024 CLC 2123 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-06-06Read full judgment →
• Nasir Sharif vs Sabeela Imtiaz And Another2024 LHC 5250, 2025 CLC 5 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-11Read full judgment →
• Nasir Mahmood, Regional Operations, Chief, HBL, etc. vs Kamaran Khan2024 PHC 366, 2025 PLD Peshawar 120 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-13
  consumer protectionmaintainability of appealspecial law vs general lawmutatis mutandisappellate jurisdictioncivil vs criminal nature of orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of appeals filed against orders passed by Consumer Courts under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether an order passed by a Consumer Court under Section 15 of the Act, which is civil in nature, is appealable under Section 17(2) of the Act, given that the provision incorporates the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which generally restricts appeals to those arising from criminal courts under Section 404. The Court held that the right to appeal under Section 17(2) of the Act is a substantive statutory right that extends to all orders of the Consumer Court, including those under Section 15. The Court clarified that the reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in Section 17(2) is purely procedural, intended to provide an appellate framework, and does not subject the appeal to the restrictive bars of the Code. Consequently, the Court established that the special law (the Act) overrides general procedural bars, ensuring a uniform appellate mechanism for both civil and criminal orders passed by Consumer Courts.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order passed by a Consumer Court under Section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997, appealable to the High Court?
  • Does the reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in Section 17(2) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997, subject appeals to the bar under Section 404 of the Code?
  • Does the right to appeal under Section 17(2) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997, distinguish between orders of a civil nature and those of a criminal nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Hussain vs Mst. Shahnawaz Begum & others2024 SHC 428, 2024 CLC 2134 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ali vs Mst. Raheela Mahdi2024 LHC 5787, 2025 CLC 885 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-27Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ahmad vs Amanullah Khan Durani Saduzai etc2024 LHC 4786 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-21Read full judgment →
• Naseer-Ud-Din through Legal Heirs vs Ghairat Khan and others2024 CLC 2070 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-26Read full judgment →
• Naseer Khan vs Nisar Khan and others2024 SHC 1402, 2025 CLC 801 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-31Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmed Muchi vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 488 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad vs Mst. Sumaira Rehman2024 CLC 2110 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-28Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad Qadri vs Meer Muhammad Nawaz, Returning Officer and another2024 LHC 21, 2024 YLR 958 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-06Read full judgment →
• Naseem-Us-Sami and 49 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division and 4 others2024 PLC (C.S) 41 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-09
  constitutional petitionspecial allowancehouse rent ceilingstatutory authorityBoard of Governors powersFederal Government controlservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, permanent employees of the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority (PSQCA), filed a constitutional petition seeking the restoration of a 20% special allowance and a 65% house rent ceiling approved by the Board of Governors (BoG) of the PSQCA. The core legal question was whether the PSQCA Board of Governors could independently grant special allowances and increased house rent ceilings to its employees without the sanction and concurrence of the Federal Government and the Ministry of Finance. The court held that under the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority Act, 1996, decisions of the BoG are subject to the directions and final approval of the Federal Government, and that any allowance over and above normal allowances requires the approval of the Prime Minister in relaxation of government policy. Since the requisite Federal Government approval and Finance Division concurrence were lacking, the allowances were illegal from the outset. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Board of Governors of the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority is competent to grant special allowances to its employees without the approval of the Federal Government?
  • Does a statutory authority have the power to disburse allowances over and above normal basic pay scales without concurrence from the Finance Division?
  • Whether the High Court can grant discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution to enforce an allowance that is contrary to government policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseem Ullah vs The State and another2024 MLD 27 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-20
  post-arrest bailattempted murderprohibitory clausefurther inquirycriminal enmity
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by Naseem Ullah seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 324/337-G/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 15 of the Arms Ordinance, arising from FIR No. 86 at Police Station Sahib Abad, District Dir Upper. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the direct charge of causing a knife blow to the vital part of the victim's head, supported by the medical report, site plan, and recovery of a weapon. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner is prima facie linked to the commission of the offence, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is directly charged with a specific role involving a vital part of the body and supported by corroborative material like the medical report and site plan, and the offence falls within the prohibitory clause, post-arrest bail cannot be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused directly charged with a knife blow to a vital part of the body is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the mere possibility of further inquiry in a criminal case warrant the grant of bail under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • How is the culpability of an accused to be assessed when considering a bail application in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseem Khan and others vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2024 SCP 193, 2024 SCMR 1341, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 979, 2024 PLJ SC 516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-17
  service lawpromotion quotajudicial reviewcivil servantsadministrative discretionvested rightseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions challenging a judgment of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, which upheld a government notification altering promotion quotas for Soil Conservation Assistants. The petitioners, whose promotion quota was reduced from 100% to 75% to accommodate Field Assistants, contended that the notification was ultra vires and adversely affected their seniority and career progression. The core legal question was whether the government’s policy decision to amend promotion criteria and quotas for civil service posts is subject to judicial interference. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the formulation of recruitment and promotion policies, including the determination of eligibility criteria, falls within the exclusive administrative domain of the government. The Court affirmed that promotion is not a vested right, and civil servants only possess a right to be considered for promotion. Consequently, in the absence of any demonstrated illegality, discrimination, or violation of statutory provisions, the Court refused to interfere with the government’s policy decision, establishing that administrative authorities possess the discretion to amend service rules in the interest of service efficiency.

  Questions settled

  • Is promotion to a higher grade a vested right of a civil servant?
  • Does the government have the exclusive authority to prescribe eligibility criteria and promotion quotas for civil service posts?
  • Under what circumstances can a court interfere with a government's policy decision regarding civil service recruitment and promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseem Bibi, etc vs Imran Qayyum, etc2024 LHC 4981, 2025 CLC 813 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-29Read full judgment →
• Naseeb Ullah Khan and another vs The State etc2024 PHC 116 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-01Read full judgment →
• Naseeb Rawan vs The State2024 IHC 32 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-29
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlscope of investigationasset forfeituremethamphetamineheroinprohibitory clauseprosecutorial oversight
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the alleged recovery of 800 grams of methamphetamine (ice) and 250 grams of heroin under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the huge quantity of narcotics recovered, and the mandatory scope and duties of investigating agencies under the Act of 1997 to trace the entire chain of supply, financiers, and assets derived from illicit drug trade. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner was prima facie connected to an offense falling within the prohibitory clause and that sufficient incriminating material existed. Furthermore, the Court laid down key principles mandating that investigations in narcotics cases must not be limited to mere spot recovery from peddlers but must comprehensively investigate the entire chain from cultivator to abuser, trace illicit assets for forfeiture, and ensure rigorous oversight by prosecutors under the Federal Prosecution Service Act, 2023.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused found in possession of commercial quantities of narcotics falling within the prohibitory clause entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the scope of investigation under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 extend beyond mere spot recovery to tracing the entire supply chain and illicit assets?
  • Can a prosecutor return a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. due to incomplete investigation regarding the source and financing of narcotics under the Federal Prosecution Service Act, 2023?
  • What is the maximum period of physical remand permissible for an accused arrested under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 following the insertion of Section 49A?
  Read full judgment →
• Naqeebullah S/O Gul Raiz vs The State2024 SHC 804 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-12
  post-arrest bailrobberyidentification paradefurther inquirynon-prohibitory clausecomplainant statementstolen property
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of F.I.R. No. 84/2024 registered under Section 392/397/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Docks Karachi. The core legal question involved whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail where the complainant appeared in court, conceded to the bail, and stated he did not identify the applicant, and where no identification parade was held. The Sindh High Court accepted the bail application, holding that the complainant's statement calling for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, coupled with the fact that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause and the lack of a test identification parade, warranted the grant of bail. The court laid down the principle that the complainant's version at the bail stage is a paramount consideration, and where a case falls within the non-prohibitory clause and lacks exceptional circumstances, bail must be granted favorably.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the complainant appears in court and states that they do not identify the accused?
  • Is a test identification parade necessary when an accused is not arrested on the spot but after a delay?
  • Does an offense not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle the accused to bail as a rule in the absence of exceptional circumstances?
  • What are the essential elements required to constitute an offense under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Najeebullah and others vs Government of Balochistan through Chief2024 PLC (C.S.) 516 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-01
  Prosecution ServiceAdministrative AutonomyTransfer and PostingSeparation of PowersConstitutional PetitionProsecutor GeneralCriminal Justice System
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a government letter asserting that the Secretary, Prosecution Department, Government of Balochistan, rather than the Prosecutor General, held the authority to transfer and post members of the Prosecution Service. The core legal question was whether the administrative powers, specifically regarding transfers and postings, vested in the Prosecutor General or the executive branch under the Balochistan Prosecution Service (Constitution, Function and Powers) Act, 2003. The Court held that the Act of 2003 was designed to create an independent and impartial prosecution service, free from executive influence. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Prosecutor General, vested with the administration and control of the service under Section 5 of the Act, possesses the exclusive authority for the transfer and posting of prosecution officers. The Court emphasized that the independence of the prosecution is essential for a fair criminal justice system, analogous to the separation of the judiciary from the executive. The impugned letter was set aside, affirming the Prosecutor General's administrative autonomy over the service.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power to transfer and post members of the Prosecution Service vest in the Prosecutor General or the Secretary of the Prosecution Department under the Balochistan Prosecution Service (Constitution, Function and Powers) Act, 2003?
  • Is the Prosecution Service intended to function independently of the executive branch under the Balochistan Prosecution Service (Constitution, Function and Powers) Act, 2003?
  • Does the term 'administration' in Section 5 of the Balochistan Prosecution Service (Constitution, Function and Powers) Act, 2003 include the authority to transfer and post prosecution officers?
  Read full judgment →
• Naimatullah vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Science and Technology and 2 others2024 PLC (C.S.) 875 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-13
  constitutional petitionjudicial reviewservice rulespromotionvested rightselection board
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, serving as a Principal Coastal Engineer (BS-19) in the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO), challenged the decision of the respondent ministry to reconvene a meeting of the Selection Board to reconsider promotions to the post of Chief Scientific Officer (BS-20), alleging that his prior recommendation for promotion had already been approved and that he could not be demoted or subjected to a revised selection process without lawful authority or hearing. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was rightly considered for promotion under the National Institute of Oceanography Employees Service Rules, 2012, whether the department could reconvene the Selection Board, and whether the service rules conferred a vested right to promotion. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioner was considered for promotion in violation of the applicable service rules since he lacked the prerequisite designation and criteria, and that executive authorities possess the prerogative to correct anomalies and reconsider matters where initial decisions breach prescribed rules. The court dismissed the petition, laying down that constitutional courts will exercise judicial review over promotion decisions only in cases of illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, breach of rules, or proven malice, and reiterating that no employee possesses a vested right to promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the petitioner was rightly considered for promotion to the post of Scientific Officer BS-20 under the Recruitment Rules notified on 23.02.2012?
  • Whether the respondent department can re-convene the meeting of the Selection Board for reconsideration of the proposal of the Selection Board earlier meeting?
  • Whether the National Institute of Oceanography Employees Service Rules, 2012 conferred a vested right to the petitioner to claim promotion to the post of Chief Scientific Officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Naimatullah Khan, Advocate, etc vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2024 SCP 141, 2024 PLJ SC 449, 2024 SCMR 1137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-25
  encroachmentspublic pavementsdemolitioncompensationland auctionamenity plotpublic interest litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses multiple public interest issues, including the rehabilitation of affectees from the Gujjar, Orangi, and Mehmoodabad Nallahs, and the demolition of Nasla Tower and Tejori Heights. Regarding the Nallah affectees, the Court directed the Sindh Government to finalize claims and allot plots with construction compensation. For Nasla Tower, where the deceased owner failed to refund buyers, the Court ordered the Official Assignee to auction the 780-square-yard plot to distribute proceeds among the affectees, while preserving the adjacent 240-square-yard amenity plot. On Tejori Heights, the Court sought details of the owners and booking refunds. Crucially, the Court addressed public encroachments, holding that pavements and public roads are exclusively for public use and cannot be blocked, even for security barriers by government officials. The Court directed the nationwide removal of all such encroachments within three days, ordering that costs for non-compliance by official buildings be recovered from the salaries of the senior-most occupying officers.

  Questions settled

  • Can public roads and pavements be encroached upon or blocked by government entities for security purposes?
  • Whether the cost of removing official encroachments on public pavements can be recovered from the salaries of the occupying public officers?
  • Can private land on which an illegally constructed building stood be auctioned to refund the affected buyers if the owner fails to comply with a refund order?
  Read full judgment →
• Naimatullah and others vs The State through Prosecutor General, Balochistan, Quetta and others2024 PCRLJ 1896 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-07-24
  murderlife imprisonmentocular accountinterested witnesschance witnessdelay in FIRmedical corroborationsentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arise from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Killa Saifullah, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Nabi and sentencing him to life imprisonment, alongside compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular testimony from alleged chance and interested witnesses, the effect of delay in lodging the FIR, and whether grounds existed for either setting aside the conviction or enhancing the sentence to death. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, finding that the eye-witnesses were natural witnesses whose presence at the scene was established, and that minor discrepancies did not weaken the prosecution's case. The court laid down that prompt nomination of an accused in the FIR, corroborated by consistent medical evidence and natural eyewitness accounts, sustains a conviction for murder, and that a sentence of life imprisonment remains appropriate where premeditation is not conclusively established. Consequently, both the appeal and the revision petition for sentence enhancement were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses who have a business near the scene of the crime can be discounted as that of chance witnesses?
  • Does a minor delay in lodging the FIR vitiate the prosecution case when the accused is promptly nominated?
  • Whether inconsistencies and minor contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to set aside a conviction for murder?
  • Whether a sentence of life imprisonment should be enhanced to death when premeditation is not established by the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Naimatullah and others vs Mir Jamal and other2024 CLC 75 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-01Read full judgment →
• Naimat Ali Shah vs Anjum Shagufta and another2024 CLC 2052 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-09-02Read full judgment →
• Naik Nawaz vs The State etc.2024 PHC 190, 2025 MLD 529 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-03Read full judgment →
• Naheed Akhtar vs Provincial Government through Chief Secretary Gilgit-2024 PLC (C.S.) 501 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-10-27
  service mattercivil revisioncompromise decreeback benefitsmerit listappointment disputeCode of Civil Procedure 1908
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment that remanded a service matter to the trial court. The petitioner, a candidate for the post of EST (BS-14), sought appointment based on her merit position after the original appointee (respondent No. 7) surrendered the post via a compromise. The core legal question concerned the validity of the trial court's judgment, which was based on this compromise, and the petitioner's entitlement to appointment and back-dated salary. The Court held that since the official defendants did not contest the petitioner's eligibility or merit status, and the private respondent had surrendered her claim, the trial court’s judgment was substantially correct. However, the Court modified the relief, ruling that while the petitioner is entitled to the appointment, she cannot claim salary or benefits for a period during which she rendered no services. The principle established is that while a compromise between parties in a service dispute may be recognized, financial benefits like back-dated salary are contingent upon the actual performance of duties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant back-dated salary and benefits to a candidate who has not yet performed the duties of the post?
  • Is a compromise decree between a plaintiff and a private defendant binding in a service matter where official defendants do not contest the plaintiff's eligibility?
  • Does an appellate court err by remanding a case when the underlying dispute between the parties has been resolved through a valid compromise?
  Read full judgment →
• Nafees Ahmad vs Zia-ud-Din2024 LHC 1554, 2024 CLD 776, 2024 MLD 1580 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-17Read full judgment →
• Naeem ur Rehman Khan, Shah Muhammad Zaman Advocate, Muhammad2024 SHC 1424 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Naeem Sajid and others vs The State through Prosecuter General Punjab2024 SCP 302, 2025 SCMR 129, PLJ 2025 SC (Cr.C.) 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-17
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clausecross-versionrule of consistencytentative assessmentmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges of murder under the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioners, accused of killing the complainant's father during a land dispute, challenged the Lahore High Court's dismissal of their bail application. The core legal question was whether, given the conflicting versions of the incident and the existence of a cross-FIR, the petitioners' case warranted further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, thereby entitling them to bail. By a majority decision, the Supreme Court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail. The Court held that because the petitioners and the complainant presented contradictory narratives regarding the aggression and the specific circumstances of the death, the prosecution's case required proof through cogent and reliable evidence at trial. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioners' involvement was a matter of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail on a tentative assessment of the facts. The dissenting opinion argued that the petitioners were expressly nominated with specific roles and that the cross-version was delayed, thus failing to meet the criteria for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a cross-version in a murder case constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When is the rule of consistency applicable in bail matters?
  • What is the scope of the Court's assessment of evidence at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Naeem Rafi vs Waseem and 8 others2024 YLR 1360 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-15Read full judgment →
• Naeem Qudrat & 6 others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 346 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-25Read full judgment →
• Naeem Ahmed Khan vs Darya Khan2024 MLD 689 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-25Read full judgment →
• Nadir Khoso Legal Heirs of deceased, Shbbir Ahmed, Moula Bux vs State2023 SHC 752, 2024 YLR 1565 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-05
  rule of consistencybenefit of doubtacquittal appealmurder convictiondelay in FIRadverse inferenceQanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against the conviction of the appellant for murder, alongside acquittal appeals regarding co-accused and a revision application for sentence enhancement. The core legal questions involved the impact of a significant delay in lodging the FIR, the effect of the prosecution's failure to produce a material eye-witness, and the applicability of the rule of consistency where co-accused had previously been acquitted on the same evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the unexplained delay in the FIR, the non-production of a key witness, and the lack of corroborative evidence. Applying the rule of consistency, the Court set aside the appellant's conviction, noting that the evidence against him was identical to that of the acquitted co-accused. The Court affirmed that acquittal judgments carry a double presumption of innocence and should not be disturbed unless perverse. The key principles laid down include that the rule of consistency is a mandatory consideration in criminal trials and that the prosecution's failure to produce essential witnesses warrants an adverse inference under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency require the acquittal of an accused when co-accused charged with the same offence on identical evidence have already been acquitted?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, for failing to produce a material eye-witness?
  • Is the recovery of a crime weapon a substantive piece of evidence or merely corroboratory in a criminal trial?
  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem-ur-Rehman Baig vs The Learned Full Bench NIRC and Others2024 SHC 980 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-24
  workman definitionindustrial relationsburden of proofnature of dutieswrongful terminationNIRCcross-examinationemployment status
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution Petition challenged an order passed by the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which had overturned a Single Bench decision reinstating the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, despite his designation as a 'Senior Engineer,' fell within the definition of a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The High Court held that the petitioner was a workman, finding that the respondent failed to produce evidence of managerial or administrative authority. The Court emphasized that the nomenclature of a job title is not the deciding factor in determining employment status; rather, the 'litmus test' is the nature of the duties actually performed. Since the petitioner’s duties were manual and technical, and the respondent failed to challenge these assertions during cross-examination, the Court ruled that the facts were deemed admitted. Consequently, the Court set aside the Full Bench’s order and restored the Single Bench’s decision, affirming that the petitioner was entitled to the protections afforded to a workman.

  Questions settled

  • Is the nomenclature of a job title determinative of whether an employee is a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Does the failure to challenge specific testimony during cross-examination constitute an admission of those facts?
  • What is the 'litmus test' for determining whether an employee falls within the definition of a workman in an industrial establishment?
  • Does the burden of proof lie with the employee to establish their status as a workman through evidence of their actual duties?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem- vs Mst. Reema2024 YLR 530 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-06Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ul Zafar Khan vs Returning Officer, Na-47 & another2024 IHC 30, 2024 PLD Islamabad 122 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-10Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Solangi vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 442 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Khan, Inspector Rangers, Pakistan Rangers Sindh, Karachi vs Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 26 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsreduction in rankfair trialprinciples of natural justicePakistan Rangersvague chargescourt of inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal was filed by an Inspector in Pakistan Rangers under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, challenging an order imposing a penalty of reduction in rank, along with the subsequent departmental rejection order. The core legal question revolved around whether disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of a penalty were vitiated due to vague charges, violation of the principles of natural justice, and conducting an inquiry prior to the issuance of a charge sheet. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the charges were ambiguous and that initiating a court of inquiry before issuing the charge sheet violated fundamental principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial. The Tribunal set aside the impugned penalty orders and directed the restoration of the appellant to his original rank with full back benefits. The key principles laid down include the requirements that disciplinary charges must be specific and comprehensive, and that conducting inquiries prior to formal charge sheets violates natural justice and procedural fairness.

  Questions settled

  • Whether disciplinary proceedings are vitiated if a court of inquiry is conducted prior to the issuance of a formal charge sheet?
  • Can a penalty be sustained when the charges leveled against a civil servant are ambiguous and lack specific dates, times, or places?
  • Does conducting an inquiry before issuing a charge sheet violate the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Farid vs The State through Complainant Amanuullah2024 YLR 2582 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2024-03-27
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencycorruption casefurther inquirydelay in FIRcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 05/2024, involving charges under sections 161, 471, 468, 465, 420, 417, 409, and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The petitioner, a store-keeper, sought bail after the trial court refused it. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances and the treatment of co-accused. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the main co-accused had already been granted bail, invoking the "rule of consistency." Furthermore, the Court observed that the complainant had disowned the nomination of the petitioner, the FIR was lodged with a significant four-year delay, and no specific embezzlement amount was attributed to the petitioner. Emphasizing that bail is the rule and refusal the exception, the Court found the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the investigation was complete and the petitioner’s continued incarceration served no purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of bail to co-accused in the same FIR entitle the remaining accused to bail under the rule of consistency?
  • Can bail be granted when the complainant disowns the nomination of the accused in the FIR?
  • Does an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and the prosecution has already secured all relevant documentary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Durrani vs The State2024 PHC 130 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-03Read full judgment →
• Nadeem alias Nadoo vs The State2024 SHC 1360 · Sindh High Court
  murderbenefit of the doubtcommon intentionabscondingnight-time identificationcriminal appealsentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency and reliability of ocular and medical evidence, identification at night, and the legal effect of absconding and common intention where the appellant was only assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased from behind. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to contradictions, lack of a disclosed source of identification during a night incident, unnatural conduct of prosecution witnesses, and statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 placing the appellant elsewhere. The court laid down the principles that mere absconding in isolation without corroborative incriminating evidence cannot sustain a conviction, that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as of right, and that widening the net to falsely implicate suspects invalidates the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere absconding by an accused, in the absence of other incriminating evidence, is sufficient to maintain a conviction?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of being assigned a role of holding the deceased from behind when the main assailant's sentence has been modified and co-accused on the same set of evidence have been acquitted?
  • Whether a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  • Does the inclusion of suspects in column No. 2 of the police report based on statements of local witnesses reflecting non-presence weaken the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ahmed and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through the Secretary, Soprts, Tourism, Archaeology, Museums and Youth Affairs Department, Peshawar and others2024 PHC 316, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 87 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-10
  contract employmentregularizationvested rightconstitutional jurisdictionmaster and servanttourism authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition involves employees appointed on a contract basis seeking regularization of their services or, alternatively, re-advertising of the positions with preference given to them. The core legal questions relate to whether contract employees possess a vested right to regularization or extension of their contracts under constitutional jurisdiction. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that contract employment terminates upon the expiry of its term, confers no right to regularization or continuation, and is governed by the terms of the contract and relevant statutory provisions. The court established that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to alter contractual terms or force an employer to extend a contract, and that contract employees have no legal entitlement to conversion into regular appointments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract employees have a legal right to seek regularization of their services upon the expiry of their contract period?
  • Can the High Court alter or extend contractual terms and conditions in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does an employer have the discretion to extend a contract or dispense with the services of a contract employee upon the completion of their tenure?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Abbas Mallah vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 328, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 520 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-25
  deceased quotacivil servantconstitutional petitionservice matterappointmentadministrative delaySindh Civil Servants Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the son of a deceased civil servant seeking a direction to the School Education Department, Government of Sindh, to appoint him against the quota reserved for deceased employees. The petitioner, whose father passed away during service in 2003, alleged that despite fulfilling codal formalities and applying within the prescribed timeframe, the department failed to process his appointment, causing undue delay since 2008. The respondents argued that the matter was policy-based and that the application was belated. The Court held that the department’s failure to act was unjustified and violated the law. Relying on Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974, the Court allowed the petition, directing the authorities to consider the petitioner's eligibility for a suitable ministerial post in accordance with the relevant rules and Supreme Court precedents. The judgment emphasizes that statutory rights regarding deceased quotas must be honored, and administrative apathy cannot be used to deny legitimate entitlements to legal heirs of deceased civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Is a government department obligated to process an application for appointment under the deceased quota if the applicant has fulfilled all codal formalities?
  • Can a government department deny an appointment under the deceased quota solely on the grounds of administrative delay when the application was filed within the policy terms?
  • Does Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974, mandate the consideration of legal heirs of deceased civil servants for suitable ministerial posts?
  Read full judgment →
• Nabi Bux & others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1096 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-23Read full judgment →
• N.P. Spinning Mills Limited vs Muhammad Siddique and another2024 SHC 912 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-06Read full judgment →
• M/s. Young's (Private) Limited and others vs Federation of Pakistan and2024 SHC 890, 2024 PTD 1547 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-27Read full judgment →
• M/s. Wazir Cotton Ginners & Oil Mills, etc vs Bank of Punjab2024 LHC 4477 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-10Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited vs M/s. Bhatti Fabrics etc.2024 LHC 3160 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-10Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sadiq & Suharwardy vs Ismail Industries Ltd. and Eight Other2024 SHC 10 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-10Read full judgment →
• M/s. Saba International vs The Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1384 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-21Read full judgment →
• M/s. Peshawar Electric Supply Company Ltd. (PESCO), Peshawar vs ThePTCL 2024 CL. 714 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2024-04-30Read full judgment →
• M/s. Peshawar Electric Supply Company Ltd. (PESCO), Peshawar vs ThePTCL 2024 CL. 705 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2024-02-01Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pako Computers, Karachi and others vs Custom Appellate Tribunal,2024 SHC 502 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. vs M/s. Ahmed Brothers & another2024 SHC 158 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-20Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. and others vs The Pakistan Civil Aviation2024 SHC 1008 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Pakistan National Building Material Display Center Foundation2024 SHC 182 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-05Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pak Terry Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 684 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-21Read full judgment →
• M/s. New National Electronics, Gojra Road, Sammundri, Faisalabad vs ThePTCL 2024 CL. 672 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-10-09Read full judgment →
• M/s. Mehr Dastgir Leather and Footwear Industries (Pvt) Limited vs2024 LHC 4061, 2025 PTD 16 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-11Read full judgment →
• M/s. Liven Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Limited and another vs Securities and2024 SHC 896 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Kohsar Hydropower (Pvt). Ltd. through Chief Executive, Mirpur vs Azad2024 PLJ AJ&K 131 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• M/s. Khawaja Shahid Rashid vs Custom Appellate Tribunal Bench-II &2024 SHC 884 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-27Read full judgment →
• M/s. Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited vs Additional2024 IHC 58, 2024 PTD 30 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-25
  tax recoverywrit petitionindependent adjudicationcoercive measurespending appealtax liabilityconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by the petitioner, Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited, seeking to restrain recovery proceedings initiated by tax authorities while its appeal remained pending before the appellate forum. The core legal question was whether recovery proceedings can be initiated against an assessee while their appeal regarding tax liability is still pending adjudication. The Islamabad High Court held that an assessee is entitled to have their disputed tax liabilities adjudicated by an independent forum outside the hierarchy of the respondent department before recovery measures can be enforced. Relying on established jurisprudence, including the Supreme Court's decision in Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan, the Court emphasized the necessity of independent adjudication. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal within sixty days and ordered that no coercive recovery measures be adopted against the petitioner in the interim period.

  Questions settled

  • Can tax recovery proceedings be initiated against an assessee while an appeal regarding the tax liability is pending?
  • Is an assessee entitled to adjudication of disputed tax liabilities by an independent forum outside the hierarchy of the tax department?
  • Does the pendency of an appeal against a tax demand preclude the tax authorities from adopting coercive recovery measures?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Insaf & Brothers vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 414 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• M/s. Habib Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Province of Sindh & another2024 SHC 206 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-07Read full judgment →
• M/s. Feroze Air Control System, Sammundri Road, Faisalabad vs The Cir,PTCL 2024 CL. 184 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-10-06Read full judgment →
• M/s. Elahee Buksh & Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Additional Commissioner2024 SHC 902 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nadir and 2 others vs The State2024 MLD 984 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-06
  murderocular evidenceinterested witnesscompromiseDiyatFIR delaycriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under Section 302(b), 147, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of related eyewitness testimony, the impact of delayed FIR registration, and the effect of non-recovery of the crime weapon. The Court held that the conviction of two appellants was sound, as the prosecution’s ocular evidence was consistent, natural, and corroborated by medical reports, rendering the witnesses credible despite their relationship to the deceased. The Court affirmed that mere relationship does not disqualify a witness if their presence is natural and testimony is confidence-inspiring. Furthermore, the Court ruled that minor delays in FIR registration in remote areas are excusable, and non-recovery of weapons does not invalidate a case supported by strong direct evidence. Regarding the third appellant, the Court accepted a compromise under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, subject to the payment of Diyat to the minor legal heir, and acquitted him accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship of an eyewitness to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained in a murder case despite the non-recovery of the crime weapon?
  • Is a delay of several hours in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case in remote areas?
  • Can an appellate court accept a compromise under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for an offence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Delawala Enterprises vs Salman Saeed Mahmood2024 SHC 416 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• M/s. Batala Agricultural Industries, Maqbool Road, Faisalabad vs The CirPTCL 2024 CL. 469 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-12-01Read full judgment →
• M/s. Asg Metal Limited vs The Commissioner-Ir, Zone-IV & Others2024 SHC 688, 2025 PTD 459 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-27Read full judgment →