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.

• Muhammad Faizan Babar vs Returning Officer and others2024 PHC 9, 2024 MLD 1463 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faizan and another vs The State2024 YLR 2409 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-19
  retracted judicial confessionsudden provocationcircumstantial evidencecriminal appealmurdersection 302(c) PPCpremeditation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for the murder of their father. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility of retracted judicial confessions and whether the appellants’ actions constituted intentional murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 or a lesser offense under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 due to sudden provocation. The Court held that the retracted judicial confessions were voluntary, truthful, and corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, thereby establishing the appellants' guilt. However, upon re-evaluating the evidence, the Court found that the appellants acted without premeditation to protect their sister from sexual assault, and the deceased’s aggression provoked the incident. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction under section 302(b) and instead convicted the appellants under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle laid down is that while retracted confessions may be relied upon if corroborated, the absence of premeditation and the presence of sudden provocation can mitigate a murder charge from section 302(b) to section 302(c).

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession be relied upon to support a conviction if it is found to be voluntary and truthful?
  • What criteria must be met for circumstantial evidence to support a conviction in a capital case?
  • Does the absence of premeditation and the presence of sudden provocation justify a conviction under section 302(c) instead of 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the evidence of police witnesses regarding arrest and recovery admissible if they are not dented during cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faisal vs The State2024 SHC 960 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-19
  criminal revisionconversion of appealreduction of sentencefirst offenderquantum of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was converted into a criminal revision application with the consent of the parties due to a bona fide mistake in filing. The applicant challenged the concurrent judgments of the lower courts whereby he was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment with a fine under Criminal Case No.07/2021. During the hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant did not press the revision on merits and instead sought lenominity, praying for the reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone, noting that the applicant was a first offender and the sole breadwinner. The Assistant Prosecutor General raised no objection to this proposal. Upon reviewing the record and assessing the evidence, the court found the conviction to be well-reasoned. Taking into consideration that the applicant was a first offender, had no prior criminal record, and had already served a substantial portion of his sentence including remissions, the court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, disposing of the application accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal appeal be converted into a criminal revision application due to a bona fide mistake regarding maintainability?
  • Whether the sentence of a first offender can be reduced to the period already undergone in light of mitigating circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faisal Muzammil and 6 others vs Securities and Exchange2024 CLD 415 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-08-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faheem Ahmed Kiani vs University of Azad Jammu And Kashmir through Vice Chancellor having his office at Chellah Bandi, Muzaffarabad and another2024 PLJ AJ&K 38 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Essa vs The State and another2024 PHC 164 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ejaz vs Ministry of Interior and another2024 IHC 14 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-04
  passport control listfundamental right to travelgovernment servicedisciplinary proceedingswrit jurisdictionadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an ex-employee of the President's Secretariat, filed this writ petition challenging the refusal of the Directorate General of Immigration and Passports to issue him a passport. The petitioner, dismissed from service for unauthorized absence, sought to return to Pakistan from abroad. The respondent argued that the petitioner's name was placed on the Passport Control List (PCL) based on the President's Secretariat's recommendation, citing Rule 21(d) of the Passports Rules, 2021, which allows for such restrictions on delinquent government servants. The core legal question was whether the state could restrict an individual's fundamental right to travel by withholding a passport based solely on departmental misconduct after disciplinary proceedings had already concluded. The Court held that the restriction was unlawful and disproportionate. It ruled that while Rule 21(d) permits recommendations against issuing passports to delinquent employees, such administrative actions cannot override the fundamental right to travel under Article 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, especially when no criminal liability or outstanding dues exist. The Court declared the non-issuance of the passport without lawful authority and directed the authorities to process the application.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department restrict an ex-employee's fundamental right to travel by requesting the non-issuance of a passport?
  • Does Rule 21(d) of the Passports Rules 2021 authorize the indefinite denial of a passport to a former government servant based on past misconduct?
  • Is the denial of a passport to a dismissed government servant disproportionate when no criminal case or financial liability exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Eissa and another vs The State2024 MLD 491 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-27
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencemurder trialeyewitness credibilitycorroborative evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given that the trial court acquitted co-accused on the same evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with contradictions, particularly regarding the identification of the accused during a dark night incident and the timing of the FIR registration. The Court emphasized that once prosecution witnesses are disbelieved regarding co-accused, their testimony cannot be relied upon against others without independent, unimpeachable corroboration. Furthermore, the Court ruled that medical evidence, recoveries, and motive are merely corroborative and cannot sustain a conviction if the primary direct evidence is unreliable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace, whenever a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted based on the same evidence for which co-accused were acquitted without independent corroboration?
  • Is medical and recovery evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction when direct eyewitness testimony is found unreliable?
  • Does the benefit of doubt in criminal cases constitute a right of the accused rather than a concession?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Dost vs Muzzamil Aslam2024 SHC 54 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Dost vs Khurram Sher Zaman2024 SHC 52 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Dost vs Awab Alvi2024 SHC 50 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Dilshad, Rana M. Iqbal vs The State and another, Muhammad2024 LHC 4685, 2025 PCRLJ 286, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 171 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-18
  criminal appealmurderocular evidencebenefit of doubtrecovery of weaponappreciation of evidencemotiveacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant for the murder of Muhammad Munawar under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the ocular account and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction. The Lahore High Court found the testimony of the eyewitnesses to be highly unnatural, noting their failure to intervene during the assault, the absence of bloodstains on their clothes or the vehicle used to transport the victim, and their failure to identify the body. Furthermore, the court rejected the recovery of the weapon as unreliable due to procedural lapses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the failure to prove the alleged motive. The court held that where the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appeal was accepted, and the revision petition for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of eyewitnesses to intervene during a violent assault render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon credible when independent witnesses from the vicinity are not associated as required by Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of bloodstains on the clothes of those transporting a victim with a severe stab wound undermine the credibility of their presence at the scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Dilshad vs The Government of Punjab through Chief2024 LHC 3033 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Dawood and others vs Khudaidad and others2024 CLC 725 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-05-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Danish Sajid vs Secretary, Government of Punjab etc2024 LHC 5246 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux, Muhammad Ilyas vs Province of Sindh through Chief2024 SCP 309, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1349, 2024 SCMR 1864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-01
  service appeallimitationin limine dismissalcause of actionmixed question of law and factservice tribunalprocedural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal against orders of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' service appeals in limine on the grounds of limitation. The petitioners, whose employment was terminated by the Education and Literacy Department, challenged these dismissals, arguing that their departmental appeals were filed within time and that the Tribunal failed to conduct a proper factual inquiry. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal could summarily dismiss appeals as time-barred without issuing notice or verifying the specific dates of the cause of action for each individual appellant. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal, as a fact-finding forum, erred by dismissing the appeals without proper adjudication. The Court ruled that the issue of limitation in these circumstances constituted a mixed question of law and fact, necessitating a detailed examination of individual records rather than summary dismissal. The Court emphasized that procedural rules exist to facilitate, not obstruct, justice, and that technical interpretations should not defeat substantive rights. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision after hearing all parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal in limine on the ground of limitation without issuing notice to the respondent department?
  • Is the question of limitation in service appeals considered a mixed question of law and fact when the date of the cause of action is disputed?
  • Does the Sindh Service Tribunal have the authority to examine evidence and summon witnesses to resolve factual controversies regarding the limitation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal through Legal Heirs vs Dubai Islamic Bank Limited2024 CLD 623 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal Nawaz vs Director General, Federal Investigation Agency, and others2024 LHC 3288, 2024 PLD Lahore 584 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-04
  bank account freezingFederal Investigation Agencymoney launderinginquiry vs investigationproperty seizureconstitutional petitionprocedural safeguards
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the Federal Investigation Agency's (FIA) authority to restrict the petitioner's bank account during the inquiry stage of a money laundering investigation. The core legal question was whether the FIA possesses the power to freeze bank accounts during an inquiry and whether such actions require adherence to specific statutory procedures. The court held that while the FIA is empowered to seize property, including bank accounts, under Section 5(1) of the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974 read with Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, it must strictly comply with the procedural safeguards mandated by the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010 (AMLA). The court clarified that while 'inquiry' and 'investigation' are distinct, the power to seize property applies to both. However, because the FIA failed to obtain prior judicial permission or submit required reports under Sections 8 and 9 of the AMLA, the freezing order was declared unlawful. The judgment establishes that investigative powers must be balanced with constitutional rights, necessitating rigorous judicial oversight over property seizures.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Investigation Agency have the authority to freeze bank accounts during the inquiry stage of a case?
  • Are bank accounts considered 'property' subject to seizure under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Must the Federal Investigation Agency comply with the procedural requirements of the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010 when freezing accounts?
  • Is a police officer required to report the seizure of property to a Magistrate under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal and others vs The State2024 SHC 556, 2024 YLR 2561 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-29
  post-arrest bailwhite-collar crimefurther inquirymechanical arrestfundamental rightsfinancial embezzlementFIA investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns post-arrest bail applications filed by employees of the Hyderabad Electric Supply Company (HESCO) and various bankers, accused of involvement in a large-scale financial misappropriation scheme spanning 2017 to 2023. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the status of the investigation. The Court held that the case against the applicants constituted one of "further inquiry" under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prosecution failed to establish a clear money trail or individual culpability, and the evidence remained largely documentary and in the possession of the FIA. The Court emphasized that law enforcement agencies must not exercise the power of arrest in a mechanical or callous manner, particularly in white-collar crimes. It established that arrests should be a last resort, requiring sufficient justification, and that where two reasonable opinions exist regarding the evidence, the court must favor the accused to protect fundamental rights to liberty and dignity, ensuring that the power of arrest is strictly regulated.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mechanical arrest of an accused in a white-collar crime without sufficient justification violate fundamental rights?
  • Should bail be granted when the prosecution fails to establish a clear money trail or individual culpability in a complex financial fraud case?
  • Is the failure of an investigating agency to comply with internal rules regarding the verification of complaints a valid ground to draw an adverse inference against the State?
  • When two reasonable opinions can be formed based on the same evidentiary material, which approach should the court adopt regarding bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal and another vs The State etc. and another2024 LHC 686, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 571, 2024 YLR 2169 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-20
  murderbenefit of the doubtdelayed FIRDNA evidencechain of custodymotivecriminal appealacquittal
  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 rigorous imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, the credibility of the delayed and ante-timed F.I.R., the evidentiary value of DNA reports from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency without formal production of the collecting officers, and the proof of motive. The Lahore High Court held that numerous discrepancies, doubts regarding the timing of the F.I.R., omissions in the inquest report, missing chain of custody for forensic parcels, and unproven motive rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant of the charges, and dismissed the connected revision petition for enhancement of sentence, laying down principles regarding the necessity of safe custody of forensic evidence, fair investigation, and the extension of the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ante-timed F.I.R. and discrepancies in the ocular account are sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a murder case?
  • Does a DNA report from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency dispense with the requirement of producing the expert or collecting officers under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether failure to establish the chain of custody for forensic parcels renders DNA evidence unreliable?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when multiple circumstances create reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Behroz Khan vs The State through Prosecutor General Punjab2024 YLR 1854 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-18
  post-arrest bailmurdercircumstantial evidenceballistic reportrecovery of weaponsupplementary statementprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises out of FIR No. 418/2022 registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shadbagh, Lahore, in which the petitioner sought post-arrest bail for the murder of the deceased through firearm injuries. The core legal question addressed is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in the face of incriminating circumstantial evidence, a supplementary statement implicating him, eyewitness accounts recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the recovery of a weapon matching an empty cartridge recovered from the crime scene. The Lahore High Court held that sufficient prima facie material connected the petitioner to the alleged offense, making the statutory prohibitory clause applicable, and consequently dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that information leading to the discovery of a distinct fact pursuant to a disclosure made while in police custody is admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and matching forensic ballistic evidence corroborating eyewitness testimony provides sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail in capital offenses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of a weapon that matches an empty cartridge from the crime scene constitutes sufficient incriminating material to deny post-arrest bail?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply when the role attributed to a co-accused granted bail is distinct from that of the petitioner?
  • What is the extent of admissibility of information and discoveries made by an accused while in police custody under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Khan vs Azad Govt. of The State of Jammu & Kashmir2024 PLJ AJ&K 99 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Ahmad and another vs Province of Punjab through District Officer (Revenue) others2024 LHC 2515, 2024 MLD 1709 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Barjees Tahir vs Arslan Aswad Naeem and 18 Others2024 LHC 5187 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Banaras vs Govt. of the Punjab etc.2024 LHC 839, 2024 PLJ Lahore 242 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-26
  constitutional petitionforest conservationclimate changetree felling restrictiondelegated legislationjurisdiction of deputy commissionerenvironmental protectionsustainable development
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner challenged a notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi, restricting the felling of trees. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Commissioner possessed the requisite legal authority and jurisdiction under the applicable laws and rules to issue such a notification, or whether such power vested exclusively in the Government. The Lahore High Court held that while the petitioner lacked a strong case regarding interference with private land and failed to challenge earlier applicable notifications, the Deputy Commissioner lacked the exclusive competence to impose such restrictions, as rulemaking and regulatory powers regarding forest conservation and environmental control vest in the provincial Government and its designated departments under the relevant legislative framework. The court laid down the principle that climate change mitigation and forest conservation are paramount constitutional objectives linked to sustainable development and intergenerational justice, but administrative restrictions on tree felling must be promulgated by the competent governmental authority in strict compliance with statutory delegation and procedural rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Deputy Commissioner possess the legal authority to issue a notification restricting the felling of trees under forest and land conservation rules?
  • Whether the power to impose general restrictions on cutting trees in hill districts and Guzara forests vests exclusively in the provincial Government rather than district civil authorities?
  • Can a constitutional petitioner challenge a notification extending existing forest conservation rules without challenging the foundational notifications previously issued for the area?
  • What is the extent of the executive department's mandate under the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011, regarding delegated legislation and forest administration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bachal vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 400 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azram vs Muhammad Altaf and another2024 LHC 1120, 2024 CLC 1137 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem vs Noor Muhammad (deceased) through LRs. Etc2022 LHC 6273, 2024 MLD 1550 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem Mahar vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 560 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs Province of the Punjab through District Collector &2024 LHC 1690, 2025 CLC 600 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Khan Swati vs Provincial Election2024 PHC 132 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Khan & others vs Raseed and others2024 PHC 374, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 63 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Brohi vs National Accountability Bureau (The State)2024 PCRLJ 745 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-30
  National Accountability Ordinancecorruption and corrupt practicescooperative housing societyillegal allotment of plotsembezzlementcriminal appealsentencing modificationadministrator liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant, a former Administrator of a Cooperative Housing Society, for corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question concerned whether the appellant, by acting in contravention of official circulars and regulatory cautions, committed offences by illegally cancelling and re-allotting residential plots, converting amenity plots, and embezzling society funds. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant’s involvement in the illegal plot transactions and fund embezzlement, noting that the appellant acted in clear disregard of supervisory instructions and statutory cautions. However, the Court found insufficient evidence regarding the alleged illegal award of civil and electrical contracts. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction for the proven offences but modified the sentence to the period already served, citing the reduction in the scope of the conviction and the proportionality of the punishment. The judgment affirms that public officials managing statutory or cooperative bodies are strictly bound by the regulatory framework and that unauthorized deviations causing financial loss constitute actionable corruption.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Administrator of a cooperative housing society commit corruption under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, by acting in violation of supervisory circulars and regulatory cautions?
  • Can a conviction under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, be sustained if the prosecution fails to prove specific allegations regarding the illegal award of contracts?
  • Is an appellate court empowered to reduce a sentence under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, if the original sentence is found to be excessive relative to the proven charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam and another vs The State and another2024 PCRLJ 306 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-07
  murder trialdeath sentencebenefit of reasonable doubtocular and medical contradictionchance witnessappeal against acquittalabscondencerecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals against a trial court judgment convicting the appellant of murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death, alongside an appeal against the acquittal of co-accused persons and a murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal questions revolved around whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the reliability of the eyewitnesses and medical evidence, and the corroborative value of motive, abscondence, and weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant due to material contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence, the status of eyewitnesses as chance or unconvincing witnesses, and the lack of proper proof regarding abscondence and matching firearm recoveries. The court laid down the principle that in cases of previous enmity requiring a strict standard of proof, unverified eyewitness accounts contradicted by medical evidence and unsupported by corroborative material must result in the benefit of doubt being extended to the accused, leading to the acquittal of the appellant and the dismissal of the appeal against acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony can be relied upon when contradicted by medical evidence regarding the distance between the assailant and the deceased?
  • Does previous murder enmity serve as a double-edged weapon that requires a stricter standard of proof for the prosecution?
  • Can abscondence and proclamation proceedings be used as corroborative evidence without proper proof of execution of notices under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the uncorroborated recovery of a weapon without a positive forensic matching report with crime empties provides sufficient corroboration to sustain a capital conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayyaz Bin Tariq vs The State & another2024 IHC 122 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-09
  Prevention of Electronic Crimes Actjoint trialjurisdiction of Special Judgede facto doctrinesame transactioncriminal investigationbail petitionsPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the jurisdiction of Special Judges appointed under the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958, to try offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA), and the legality of joint trials for offences under PECA and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC). The core legal questions addressed are whether the Special Judge (Central) is competent to try PECA offences, whether the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) can investigate PECA and PPC offences jointly, and whether joint trials of these offences are permissible. The Court held that the Special Judge (Central) lacks jurisdiction to try PECA offences because they are not included in the Schedule of the Act of 1958. Conversely, it affirmed that authorized agencies may investigate PECA and PPC offences committed in the same transaction, and designated ordinary criminal courts can conduct joint trials for such offences. The Court laid down the principle that the Federal Government must designate presiding officers of ordinary criminal courts under PECA. It applied the de facto doctrine to protect past, closed transactions while setting aside pending bail orders due to the jurisdictional defect.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Special Judge appointed under the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958, competent to try offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016?
  • Can offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, be investigated and tried jointly?
  • Does the de facto doctrine protect orders passed by a court that lacked jurisdiction to try the offences in question?
  • Is the Federal Investigation Agency authorized to investigate offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, alongside offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayaz and others vs Mst. Saima Saeed and others2024 SCP 310, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-11
  summoning witnessadverse inferenceexamination of witnessdefendant as witnessfair trialcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution arose from a suit for declaration and injunction where the plaintiffs sought to summon the first defendant as their own witness. The Trial Judge rejected the application, a decision subsequently upheld by both the Appellate and Revision Courts. The core legal question was whether a plaintiff can compel the defendant to testify as the plaintiff's witness. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the lower courts' decisions, refusing leave to appeal. The Court ruled that calling an opposing party as a witness is a highly objectionable practice that embarrasses judicial investigation, hinders a fair trial, and obstructs justice by placing examination and cross-examination in the wrong hands. The Court laid down the principle that if a party refrains from entering the witness box to give personal evidence without sufficient cause, it constitutes suppression of evidence, and the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference against them, rather than allowing the opposing party to compel their testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff compel the defendant to appear and testify as the plaintiff's own witness?
  • What is the legal consequence if a party to a civil suit refrains from entering the witness box to give personal evidence without sufficient cause?
  • Does the refusal of a defendant to testify justify the court allowing the plaintiff to summon that defendant as their witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Atta-ul-Mustafa s/o Muhammad Jamroz Khan Siddiqui r/o2024 SC AJK · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Atif, etc vs Government of Punjab, etc2024 LHC 2667, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1144 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-17
  contractual employeestermination of contractrequisite qualificationB.Ed qualificationeducational policyprinciple of similarly placed personsvested rightconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, formerly employed on a contract basis as Educators by the School Education Department, Punjab, approached the Lahore High Court challenging the termination of their contracts following their failure to acquire the mandatory B.Ed qualification within the stipulated period. The core legal question revolved around whether contractual employees who obtained the requisite qualification after the expiry of the cut-off date and contractual period are entitled to reinstatement, and whether relief could be claimed based on the principle of parity with similarly placed individuals who allegedly received extensions. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that contractual employees have no vested right to seek reinstatement or extension of time beyond the policy terms, and that relief cannot be granted solely on the ground of discrimination or the principle of similarly placed persons when previous benefits were extended irregularly or in violation of an established uniform policy. The court established that illegalities or deviations from policy in isolated cases do not create a positive, enforceable right for others to demand the same unlawful benefit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contractual employees who fail to acquire the requisite educational qualification within the stipulated cut-off date are entitled to reinstatement upon late completion of the qualification?
  • Does a contractual employee have a vested right to claim an extension of time for completing mandatory job qualifications?
  • Can relief be claimed under the principle of similarly placed persons when the benefit granted to others was issued in deviation of law or established policy?
  • Whether Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 can be invoked to perpetuate an illegality or demand benefits granted to others in violation of policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Atif vs Election Commission of Pakistan & others2024 LHC 2248, 2025 PLD Lahore 146 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Atif Naveed and others vs The State and others2024 LHC 1999, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 857, 2024 PCRLJ 1421 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-16
  murder appealbenefit of doubtinjured eyewitnessdelayed FIRinquest reportmedical evidencefirearm injurycriminal acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants for murder and attempted murder arising out of an F.I.R. registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Lahore High Court examined the evidence, noting severe discrepancies regarding the promptness of the F.I.R., omissions in the inquest report, a twelve-day delay in recording the injured eyewitness's statement, and conflicts in the medical evidence concerning the firing distance. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, disbelieved the ocular account and motive, and ruled that a positive forensic report alone cannot corroborate a discredited case. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions and sentences were set aside, the appellants were acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of injuries on an eyewitness conclusively establish their truthfulness and credibility?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in recording the statement of an eyewitness under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a positive forensic report regarding weapon matching sustain a conviction when the ocular account has been entirely disbelieved?
  • Does the omission of material facts from the brief history column of an inquest report cast doubt on the prompt registration of an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State2024 YLR 2498 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-15
  narcoticssafe custody of samplechain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 6/9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the alleged possession of 25 kilograms of charas, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and unbroken chain of transmission of the recovered contraband to the Chemical Examiner, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the defence evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody of the seized narcotics due to glaring contradictions between the testimonies of the complainant and the investigating officer regarding the handling and deposit of the case property, rendering the chemical report legally valueless. Furthermore, the defence evidence successfully raised reasonable doubt regarding false implication. The court laid down the principle that any break in the chain of custody or failure to prove safe transmission of narcotics samples vitiates the chemical examiner's report, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure by the prosecution to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotic samples render the chemical examiner's report worthless?
  • Whether a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  • Does contradictory evidence between the complainant and the investigating officer regarding the deposit of case property in the Malkhana vitiate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs State etcPLJ 2024 Cr.C. 435, 2024 PCRLJ 977 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-24
  Section 91 CrPCprocurement of attendancesummoning of accusedbail vs bonddetention of offenderscriminal revisiontrial procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, which dismissed an application to recall a previous order allowing an accused, summoned to face trial, to furnish surety bonds under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 instead of being taken into custody. The core legal question was whether an accused summoned to face trial for a non-bailable offence must be granted bail or taken into custody, or if the Court has the discretion to secure their presence via a bond under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that Section 91 is not limited to private complaints and empowers a Court to secure an accused's presence through a bond upon summoning. The Court clarified that Section 91 and Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 operate in different spheres; the former secures attendance, while the latter concerns bail. The Court affirmed that it retains the discretion to either accept a bond under Section 91 or, if evidence warrants, detain the accused under Section 351 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the applicability of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 extend to State cases or is it limited to private complaint cases?
  • Is it mandatory for an accused summoned to face trial for a non-bailable offence to be granted bail or taken into custody before they can be released on a bond under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a trial court have the discretion to detain an accused under Section 351 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 instead of accepting a bond under Section 91?
  • Can a court require an accused to execute a bond under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely to secure their presence for trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Judge Family Court, Ferozewala, etc.2024 LHC 438, 2024 PLD Lahore 300, 2024 PLJ Lahore 178 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Tunio vs Executive Engineer Scarp Larkana & Others2024 SHC 412, 2024 PLD Sindh 442 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Khanzada and another vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1104 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-11
  extortionbenefit of doubtanti-terrorismcriminal appealevidentiary value of videoappreciation of evidencesentence modification
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns anti-terrorism appeals filed by two appellants, Muhammad Aslam Khanzada and Barak Khan, challenging their convictions for extortion under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on a video recording and witness testimony. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case against Muhammad Aslam Khanzada, as he was neither visible nor audible in the video evidence, and the ocular testimony against him was inconsistent and unreliable, necessitating the benefit of the doubt. Conversely, the Court upheld the conviction of Barak Khan, finding his role in the extortion established through consistent witness testimony and his own admission of receiving money, though it modified his sentence to the period already undergone based on mitigating circumstances. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the benefit of doubt must be extended to an accused when the prosecution's evidence is inconclusive or contradictory, and that minor discrepancies in witness testimony do not necessarily invalidate the entire prosecution case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of an accused from a video recording of an alleged crime, coupled with inconsistent ocular testimony, entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution witnesses provide consistent testimony regarding the role of an accused, despite minor contradictions in their statements?
  • Is an admission by an accused in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sufficient to establish guilt when the accused provides an alternative explanation for the receipt of funds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Khan vs Judl. Magistrate, etc2024 LHC 3190, 2024 MLD 1796, 2025 PLJ Lahore 398 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Kalhoro vs The State and others2024 SHC 7 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and others vs Molvi Muhammad Ishaq (decd.) thr. L.Rs.2024 SCP 191, 2024 SCMR 1390, 2024 PLJ SC 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-03
  pre-emptioncompromise decreeZar-e-ShufaSection 12(2) CPCsanctity of judicial proceedingsmisreading of evidencelimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a protracted property dispute originating from pre-emption suits filed in 1972. The central legal questions involved the validity of a 1979 compromise decree, the alleged non-payment of the pre-emption amount (Zar-e-Shufa), and the maintainability of subsequent challenges under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred in disregarding the 1979 compromise, which was a valid judicial record. The Court emphasized that judicial proceedings carry a presumption of correctness under Article 91 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Furthermore, regarding the alleged shortfall in Zar-e-Shufa, the Court applied the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, ruling that parties cannot suffer due to a court's typographical error. The Court concluded that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were perverse due to the misreading of evidence and failure to recognize the finality of the earlier litigation. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the lower courts' judgments, and affirming the Appellants' ownership and possession of the disputed land.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court's typographical error regarding the amount of Zar-e-Shufa payable by a pre-emptor invalidate the decree?
  • Can a party challenge a compromise decree through an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after significant delay?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a compromise recorded in judicial proceedings under Article 91 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asjad vs The State, etc.2024 SCP 270, 2024 SCMR 1959, PLJ 2025 SC (Cr.C.) 38 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-12
  explosive substancesanti-terrorism actstatutory presumptionburden of proofmalicious intentpossession of explosivesquantum of sentenceterrorist purpose
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenges the judgment of the High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction for possessing explosive substances under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 7(1)(ff) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal questions involve whether the Anti-Terrorism Act applies to unauthorized possession of explosives without proof of a specific terrorist design, and whether possession without a functional triggering device satisfies Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. The Supreme Court held that under Section 27A of the Anti-Terrorism Act, proof of possession of explosives shifts the burden to the accused to prove lawful justification, establishing a rebuttable presumption of a terrorist purpose. However, concerning the Explosive Substances Act, the Court held that in the absence of a functional electric circuit or proof of malicious intent to endanger life, conviction under Section 4 cannot be sustained and is altered to Section 5. The Court laid down that statutory presumptions regarding terrorism apply to unauthorized explosive possessions once physical recovery is proven, but distinct malicious intent must be established for higher sentencing brackets.

  Questions settled

  • Does the unauthorized possession of explosive substances automatically raise a rebuttable presumption of the purpose of terrorism under Section 27A of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Does the absence of a functional triggering device preclude a conviction under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
  • What is the distinction in ingredients between possession under Section 4 and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
  • How does the statutory presumption under Section 27A of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 shift the burden of proof onto the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs The State2024 LHC 1184, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 893, 2024 PCRLJ 1691 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-15
  murderbenefit of doubtsafe custody of case propertyinterested witnessesabsconsionforensic evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Asif, for the murder of Mst. Robina Shoaib, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically regarding the timing of the First Information Report (FIR), the safe custody of recovered case property, and the credibility of interested eye-witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant contradictions in the timing of the FIR, the lack of evidence regarding the safe custody of the alleged murder weapon and crime empties, and the failure to establish a credible motive. The court emphasized that absconsion is merely corroborative and not substantive evidence of guilt. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reiterating the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a witness refresh their memory during examination using notes without complying with the specific requirements of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish the safe custody of recovered case property entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Is absconsion by an accused sufficient, by itself, to prove guilt in a criminal trial?
  • What is the legal effect of significant contradictions in the timing of the registration of an FIR on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs The State, etc.2024 LHC 866, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 543, 2024 PLD Lahore 459 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-22
  tender of pardonapproveraccomplice evidencecriminal revisionsessions courtprosecution agency
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby a co-accused was tendered a pardon under section 338 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to become an approver. The core legal questions involved whether a court can unilaterally tender a pardon without the consent of the accused, without taking the prosecution agency on board, and without the permission of the victim's legal heirs in a murder case. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was illegal, as the accused did not volunteer or consent to become an approver, the prosecution was not consulted, mandatory reasons were not recorded, the consent of the legal heirs of the victim was not obtained despite the charge of qatl, and the accused was not taken into custody as mandated by law. The court set aside the order, laying down that tendering a pardon requires strict compliance with statutory procedural safeguards, prosecutorial involvement, and the recording of cogent reasons.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court tender a pardon to an accused under Section 338 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without taking the prosecution agency on board?
  • Whether the consent of an accused to become an approver is mandatory before a court or officer can tender a pardon?
  • Is the permission of the victim's legal heirs required before tendering a pardon to an accused involved in an offence relating to hurt or qatl?
  • Does the law require an accused who has accepted a tender of pardon to be detained in custody until the termination of the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs Muhammad Imran and 3 others2024 PCRLJ 1295 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-15
  Illegal Dispossession Actpossessionownershipevictionpreliminary inquirycriminal complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, wherein the trial court ordered possession of a property to be taken from the applicant, Mohammad Asif, and handed over to the respondent, Mohammad Imran, based on a preliminary inquiry regarding title documents. The core legal question is whether a criminal court under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 can determine disputed property ownership and order eviction of a person in long-standing possession based on summary title inquiries. The Sindh High Court held that the Act cannot be used as a substitute for civil suits for declaration or rent eviction, and ownership cannot be conclusively determined in a preliminary police inquiry. The court laid down the principle that the primary determination under the Act must be who was in physical possession at the time of alleged dispossession, rather than a summary adjudication of disputed ownership, and that long-standing possessors cannot be arbitrarily evicted before trial concludes.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal court under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 decide issues regarding ownership of a property?
  • Is prima facie ownership of a property the sole factor to be considered when adjudicating a section 7 application under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Whether a person in long-standing possession can be arbitrarily evicted before the conclusion of the trial under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif and another vs The State2024 YLR 1149 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-20
  criminal appealidentification paradejoint identification paradebenefit of doubtmurderrobberyrecovering currency notesmedical evidence inconsistency
  Summary & questions settled

  The criminal appeals were filed by the appellants challenging their convictions and sentences under sections 302, 392, 411 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, handed down by the trial court in a private complaint and state case. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution had established the identity of the culprits and its case beyond reasonable doubt through the identification parade, medical evidence, and corroboratory recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the identification parade suffered from fatal legal flaws including being joint and held long after the crime without prior descriptive features in the FIR, the medical evidence was inconsistent with the ocular account, and the recoveries were inconsequential. The court laid down the principle that joint identification parades and those conducted without initial descriptive benchmarks in the FIR possess no evidentiary value, and that prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, extending the benefit of any reasonable doubt to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a joint identification parade of multiple accused persons carry evidentiary value under criminal law?
  • What is the legal effect on an identification parade when the eyewitnesses fail to mention any specific descriptive features of the assailants in the initial crime report?
  • Can corroboratory evidence such as weapon and cash recoveries sustain a capital conviction when the primary ocular and identification evidence has been discarded?
  • Whether inconsistencies between the ocular account and the medical post-mortem report regarding entry and exit wounds can be cured through a belated private complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif alias Asho vs State2024 YLR 1217 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-20
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubttest identification paradecircumstantial evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 265-H(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the test identification parade conducted without prior physical descriptions in the First Information Report, the lack of incriminating recoveries matching the crime weapons, and the presence of material discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The Sindh High Court held that flaws in the identification parade, delayed recording of witness statements, and unverified circumstantial evidence created serious doubts regarding the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, laid down that an accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt as a matter of right even on a single reasonable circumstance, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Does a test identification parade lose its evidentiary value when conducted without matching physical descriptions given in the first information report?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can a conviction for a capital charge be sustained solely on indirect circumstantial evidence and unverified weapon recoveries made months after the incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif @ Billa vs The State2024 SHC 924 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-04
  retrospective punishmentex post facto lawnarcotics possessionsentencing policycharascriminal appealsentence modification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Control of Narcotics Substances, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(1) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, as amended by the Control of Narcotics Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022, for possessing 1030 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether an accused can be sentenced under an amended penal law retrospectively for an offence committed prior to its promulgation. The Sindh High Court held that applying an enhanced penalty retrospectively violates Article 12 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which prohibits ex post facto criminal laws and greater penalties than those prescribed at the time of the offence. The court laid down that criminal penalties cannot be enhanced retrospectively, modifying the appellant's sentence in accordance with the law prevailing at the time of the offence and the established sentencing policy.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted and sentenced under an amended narcotics law retrospectively for an offence committed before the promulgation of the amendment?
  • Does the imposition of a greater penalty through a subsequent amendment violate the protection against retrospective punishment under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • How is the quantum of sentence determined for the possession of charas exceeding one kilogram under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State and another2024 YLR 1182 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-10
  post-arrest bailadulterated milkmandatory vs directoryfood safetyfair trialfurther inquiryPunjab Food Authority Act 2011sampling procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail for an offence under Section 22(1) of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, involving the sale of adulterated milk. The core legal question was whether Rule 52 of the Punjab Pure Food Rules, 2011, which prescribes minimum sample quantities for analysis, is mandatory or directory, and whether its non-compliance vitiates the prosecution's case. The Court held that Rule 52 is mandatory, as sampling and credible laboratory analysis are essential for ensuring a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, the failure to collect the requisite quantity of milk made the Public Analyst's report unreliable, creating a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Given that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, the Court granted post-arrest bail, reaffirming that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception for non-prohibitory offences.

  Questions settled

  • Is Rule 52 of the Punjab Pure Food Rules, 2011, regarding the quantity of food samples, mandatory or directory?
  • Does the failure to comply with the prescribed sampling quantity in the Punjab Pure Food Rules, 2011, render a Public Analyst's report unreliable?
  • Does an offence under Section 22(1) of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The Chief Engineer (Administration), WAPDA, and others2024 SCP 203, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 862 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-31
  review petitionadministrative ordermaintainabilitySupreme Court Rules 1980frivolous petitionpowers of registrar
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition was filed seeking a review of a single Judge's order affirming an administrative decision of the Registrar who returned the petitioner's civil miscellaneous application as not entertainable. The core legal question was whether a review petition lies under Article 188 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 or Order 26 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 against administrative orders passed by the Registrar or a Judge in appeal against administrative decisions. The Supreme Court held that Article 188 of the Constitution and Order 26 of the Rules pertain exclusively to the review of judicial orders, not administrative orders. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed for being neither entertainable nor maintainable under any provision of the Constitution or Rules. The Court laid down the principle that any petition or application that falls outside the scope of any provision of the Constitution, statutory law, or applicable procedural rules is frivolous and must not be received or entertained by the Registrar pursuant to Order 17 Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980.

  Questions settled

  • Does a review petition lie under Article 188 of the Constitution against an administrative order?
  • Are administrative orders of the Court reviewable under Order 26 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980?
  • Should the Registrar entertain a petition that does not fall within the scope of any provision of the Constitution or Rules under Order 17 Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Judge Executing Court, etc2024 LHC 5284, 2025 PLJ Lahore 343 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Government of Sindh and others2024 SHC 316 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Raja vs Noureen Naz & Others2024 SHC 508, 2025 CLC 567 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and others vs Azhar Ahmad and others2024 LHC 1252 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq Khan and 4 others vs Full Board of Revenue, Muzaffarabad and another2024 MLD 793 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq Khan & another vs Muhammad Daud & others2024 PHC 300, 2025 PLD Peshawar 103 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs The State etc.2024 LHC 1431, 2024 MLD 1305 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-08
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirylalkaramurdercriminal conspiracystatutory benefitbail principles
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Ashfaq, sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with Section 449 subsequently added, at Police Station Saddar Gojra. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's role of holding the deceased, raising a lalkara, and locking a room—without being armed or causing any firearm injuries—warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since co-accused with similar roles had been declared innocent during investigation, nothing was recovered from the petitioner, and his act of clasping the victim required further probe, his case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The court laid down the principle that bail should not be withheld as an advance punishment, and it is better to err in granting bail than in refusing it, as unjustified imprisonment cannot be adequately compensated upon acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the role of clasping the deceased and raising a lalkara by an unarmed accused without causing injuries makes out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of advance punishment pending trial?
  • What is the governing principle regarding the preference of granting bail versus refusing bail in debatable cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs Najma Bibi and another2024 PLJ AJ&K 59, 2025 MLD 601 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq Mughal vs The State and another2024 YLR 1508 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-28
  interim custody of vehiclesuperdariseized propertyflammable substancereduction of suretycriminal miscellaneous application
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this criminal miscellaneous application, the applicant sought to set aside an order passed by the trial court and prayed for the interim custody of an oil tanker/truck seized in connection with a criminal case, as well as a reduction in the exorbitant surety amount previously imposed. The core legal question concerned the principles governing the interim custody and release of seized vehicles loaded with hazardous or flammable substances, and whether excessive surety conditions for the release of such property should be modified. The Sindh High Court held that keeping a vehicle loaded with a massive quantity of flammable furnace oil parked in an open space at a police station poses a severe danger to the public and police officials. Consequently, the court modified the impugned order, reducing the surety amount and directing the release of the vehicle to its undisputed registered owner upon furnishing solvent surety and personal bonds, subject to strict conditions including the prohibition of its sale and the deposit of original vehicle documents with the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the interim custody of a seized vehicle loaded with a dangerous and flammable substance can be granted to its registered owner?
  • Can a court reduce an excessive surety amount imposed for the release of case property under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the discretionary powers of a criminal court regarding the custody and safeguarding of property subject to speedy decay or hazardous nature seized during an investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq & others vs Civil Judge, Samundari & others2024 LHC 5176, 2025 YLR 830 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asgher Khan vs Abdul Latif and others2024 PLJ Quetta 36 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asad Mehmood vs Government of Punjab through Secretary2024 LHC 3609, 2024 PLJ Lahore 692 · Lahore High Court · 2024-08-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arslan vs The State and another2024 PCRLJ 463 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-04
  chance witnessesbenefit of the doubtmurder referenceqatl-i-amdisqat-i-janinmedical evidenceburden of proofocular account
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the qatl-i-amd of his wife and isqat-i-janin under sections 302(b) and 338C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular accounts, medical evidence, and recoveries, particularly given the status of the primary witnesses as chance witnesses and the delayed post-mortem examination. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene, rendering their testimonies unreliable, and that recoveries and motive lacked independent corroboration. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt, holding that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt is sufficient for acquittal, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses can be relied upon without convincing reasons and physical proof of their presence at the scene?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove its initial case shift the burden of proof to the accused under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
  • Can medical evidence alone be used to identify the culprit or corroborate an unobserved occurrence?
  • What is the effect of an unexplained delay in conducting a post-mortem examination on the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs Weekly Asian Telegraph2024 PLC 241 · Implementation Tribunal For Newspaper Employees · 2024-02-12
  newspaper employeerecovery of salaryex-parte judgmentarrears of salaryemployment statusservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition filed by Muhammad Arshad before the Implementation Tribunal For Newspaper Employees for the recovery of arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 930,000/- against the Weekly Asian Telegraph. The core legal question was whether the petitioner qualified as a newspaper employee and was entitled to the claimed arrears of salary after the respondent management failed to actively contest the case and was proceeded ex-parte. The Tribunal held that the petitioner successfully established his association as an editor with the respondent's publications, bringing him within the statutory definition of a newspaper employee, and that the respondent failed to rebut the claims or provide statements of accounts. The petition was consequently allowed, directing the respondent to pay the claimed amount within one month. The Tribunal laid down the principle that where a respondent fails to substantiate preliminary objections or rebut claims with documentary evidence, the petitioner's unrebutted pleadings and supporting records regarding employment status and salary arrears must prevail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an editor of a magazine fall within the definition of a newspaper employee under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973?
  • What is the legal effect of a respondent failing to file a specific rebuttal or statement of accounts in an employment recovery petition?
  • Is an ex-parte claim for arrears of salary maintainable when supported by bank statements and publication records?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs Controller General of Accounts, Cga Complex, Islamabad and 2 others2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 115 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service lawpromotionrule of consistencyPIPFA trainingservice rulesprecedentadministrative lawFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the rejection of the appellant's request for promotion from Accounts Clerk (BS-09) to Assistant Finance Advisor (BS-17) within the Directorate of Budget and Accounts, Pakistan Public Works Department. The appellant relied on the rule of consistency, citing past promotions of colleagues who qualified for PIPFA training. The core legal question was whether the appellant, holding a lower grade, was eligible for promotion to BS-17 based on PIPFA qualification and whether past irregular promotions created a binding precedent. The Tribunal held that the appellant was ineligible for the required PIPFA training, which is restricted to Senior Auditors (BS-16). Furthermore, the Tribunal found that in the absence of prescribed service rules for the post of Assistant Finance Advisor, no promotion could be granted. Crucially, the Tribunal laid down the principle that an erroneous past transaction does not validate future wrongs, and one or multiple past irregularities cannot be invoked as a precedent to perpetuate illegality. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the respondents to frame the necessary service rules within six months.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee claim promotion based on the rule of consistency if past promotions were irregular?
  • Are employees in lower grades (BS-09) eligible for PIPFA (Public Sector) training under the Manual of Standing Orders of the Auditor General of Pakistan?
  • Can a promotion be granted to a post for which no statutory appointment or promotion rules have been framed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Khan S.S.T., BPS-16 (General) GMS vs Secretary to the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Education (E&SE) Department, Peshawar and anothers2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 22 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal
  service lawpromotiondefermentantedation of promotioncivil servantback benefitsdepartmental promotion committee
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a civil servant, challenged the denial of his promotion to Secondary School Teacher (BPS-16) with effect from the date his juniors were promoted. Although the appellant was initially deferred by the Departmental Promotion Committee due to the non-availability and disputed status of his service book, he was subsequently exonerated following an inquiry and promoted later. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, once deferred due to a deficiency that is later resolved, is entitled to promotion from the date of the original deferment. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal held that deferment is a temporary measure, not a punishment, and once the underlying deficiency is removed, the civil servant is entitled to promotion from the date their juniors were promoted. The Tribunal emphasized that a civil servant should not suffer for administrative lapses or deficiencies not attributable to their own fault. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the respondents were directed to grant the appellant promotion effective from the date of his initial deferment.

  Questions settled

  • Is deferment of promotion considered a punishment under service law?
  • Does a civil servant have a right to be promoted from the date of deferment once the deficiency causing the deferment is removed?
  • Can a civil servant be penalized for administrative deficiencies in their service record that are not attributable to their own fault?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to direct the antedation of a promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad alias Achhi vs The State and aother2024 YLR 2088 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-18
  post-arrest bailsupplementary statementdelay in FIRfurther inquirymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this petition, the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 2957/2023 registered under sections 302, 34, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Sheikhupura. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the delay in recording the supplementary statement, the general role attributed to him, the introduction of delayed motive without substantiation, and the police investigation indicating his mere presence empty-handed at the scene. The Lahore High Court accepted the bail petition and held that the prosecution case against the petitioner required further probe and inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is implicated through a belated supplementary statement with general allegations, unverified motive, and an investigative finding of mere presence without overt acts or weapon recovery, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, entitling the accused to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is not named in the initial FIR and is implicated through a delayed supplementary statement?
  • Does a general role of inflicting blows without specific attribution to an accused warrant further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
  • Whether the introduction of an unverified motive after a delay constitutes sufficient ground to deny post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad (deceased) through LRs vs BashirAhmad (deceased)2024 SCP 183, 2024 SCMR 1369, 2024 PLJ SC 651 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-08
  pre-emptionZar-e-Soimstatutory limitationdeposit of sale considerationrejection of plaintextension of time
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the interpretation of Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, specifically regarding the timeline for depositing the 'Zar-e-Soim' (one-third of the sale consideration) in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the statutory 30-day period for such deposit commences from the date of the institution of the suit or from the date of a court order. The Supreme Court held that the law mandates the deposit of the one-third amount within 30 days from the date of filing the suit. The Court affirmed that this 30-day period is a strict statutory requirement, and courts lack the jurisdiction to extend this time limit under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Even if a court fails to specify the time for deposit, the pre-emptor is under a duty to make the deposit within 30 days of the suit's institution. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the revisional court's decision dismissing the suit for failure to comply with this statutory requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 30-day period for depositing Zar-e-Soim under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 commence from the date of filing the suit or the date of the court order?
  • Does a court have the jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to extend the statutory 30-day period for depositing Zar-e-Soim?
  • Is a pre-emptor required to deposit Zar-e-Soim within 30 days of filing the suit even if the court fails to explicitly order such a deposit within that timeframe?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad & others vs The State2024 LHC 2955 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-06
  criminal appealmurderabductionbenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidencechance witnessescontradictionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants recorded by the trial court under sections 302 and 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from a private complaint. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the ocular account, the presence of chance witnesses, the consistency between medical and oral evidence, and the benefit of reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring discrepancies, unnatural conduct of the eyewitnesses, delayed reporting indicating consultation, and contradictions between medical evidence and the manner of strangulation narrated in the ocular account. The court laid down the principle that unexplained delay in post-mortem and lodging of FIR creates a presumption of prior deliberation, that inconsistent medical evidence discredits eyewitness accounts, and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution case is replete with doubt. The appeal was allowed and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the ocular account can be relied upon when the presence of the eyewitnesses at the spot is doubtful and they are categorized as chance witnesses?
  • Does a contradiction between medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries and the oral testimony of eyewitnesses render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • What is the evidentiary value of motive when the direct ocular testimony has been completely disbelieved by the court?
  • Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem examination gives rise to a presumption of preliminary investigation and prior consultation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad & 28 others vs Province of the Punjab & 02 others2024 LHC 4677 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Zaman and another vs The State and another2024 LHC 4401, 2025 MLD 245, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 83 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-15
  criminal appealforgerycheatingcriminal misconductland mutationrevenue recordres ipsa loquiturpublic servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the convictions of two appellants for fraud, forgery, and corruption regarding land transactions. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the appellants' criminal intent and acts in fabricating land records to misappropriate funds. The court acquitted Zulfiqar Ali, holding that the prosecution failed to prove his criminal liability, as the underlying dispute regarding the agreement to sell was essentially a civil matter for specific performance. Conversely, the court upheld the conviction of Muhammad Arif Zaman, a Patwari, finding he knowingly utilized dubious and incomplete revenue entries to facilitate fraudulent mutations. The judgment establishes that in cases involving forgery and cheating by public officials, courts must adopt an inquisitorial approach, giving due weight to documentary evidence and the principle of res ipsa loquitur rather than relying solely on oral testimony. Additionally, it reaffirmed that an unattested mutation entered by a Patwari lacks legal significance or value.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unattested mutation entered by a Patwari carry any legal value or presumption of truth?
  • Should courts adopt an inquisitorial approach in cases of forgery and cheating by public officials?
  • Is a dispute regarding an agreement to sell land, where no criminal intent is proven, a matter for criminal prosecution or civil litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State2024 YLR 2019 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-11
  murder referencechance witnessesbenefit of the doubtmedico-legal contradictionrigor mortisweapon recoveryimpeaching credit of witnessappeal against acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, along with a connected murder reference and a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal, arose from a judgment of the Sessions Court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd and sentencing him to death, while acquitting co-accused. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance witnesses, the evidentiary value of delayed weapon recoveries violating Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the impact of material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence regarding rigor mortis and injury locations, and the double presumption of innocence attached to an acquittal. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution witnesses were unverified chance witnesses who made dishonest improvements to align with medical evidence, that mandatory search provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were violated, and that the medical findings regarding rigor mortis cast grave doubt on the time of occurrence. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, acquitted him, and dismissed the petition against the acquittal of the co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses who fail to provide a convincing and physically corroborated reason for their presence at the crime scene can be relied upon to maintain a capital conviction?
  • Does a contradiction between the development of rigor mortis in medical evidence and the prosecution's stated time of occurrence create a fatal doubt in the state's case?
  • Whether a positive forensic report matching spent empty shells with an alleged recovered weapon loses its evidentiary value if the empty shells are inexplicably retained at the police station prior to the suspect's arrest?
  • What is the standard of interference by an appellate court against an order of acquittal where the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 802 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Javaid Khan2024 LHC 4023, 2025 MLD 323 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Sulehria, Sub-Engineer BS-11, D.A.M. Muzaffarabad vs Azad2024 PLJ AJ&K 70 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Shah vs Muhammad Ishaq Darzi2024 PLJ Quetta 87 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Malik vs Additional District Judge & two others2024 LHC 2933, 2025 CLC 832 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif and another vs Haji Khalid Mahmood (deceased) through L.Rs2024 LHC 6286 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif and 4 others vs Government of Balochistan through Chief2024 PLC (C.S.) 1125 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-07-26
  civil servantwrit jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicesalary arrearsservice tribunalconstitutional petitionouster of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, civil servants in the Health Department of the Government of Balochistan, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a writ of mandamus for the release of their unpaid salaries. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate a grievance regarding the non-payment of salaries, or if such a matter is barred by the constitutional framework governing civil service disputes. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, ruling that the payment of salary constitutes a term and condition of service under the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974. Consequently, pursuant to Article 212 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, which fall exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming that civil servants must exhaust departmental remedies and approach the appropriate Service Tribunal for such grievances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate a claim for unpaid salaries by a civil servant?
  • Is the payment of salary considered a term and condition of service for a civil servant under the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, bar the High Court from entertaining petitions regarding service matters of civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif & Others vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2024 SHC 312, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 93 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-22
  regularisation of servicecontractual employeesmaintainability of writ petitionmaster and servantstatutory rulesvested rightpublic sector companythird party employment
  Summary & questions settled

  Over three thousand petitioners filed constitutional petitions before the Sindh High Court seeking regularisation of their contingent, contractual, or third-party services in Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (SSGC). The core legal questions involved the maintainability of writ petitions against SSGC for regularisation in the absence of statutory service rules, and the petitioners' legal entitlement to such regularisation. A larger bench of the High Court held that since SSGC lacks statutory rules and the employment relationships are governed by master-servant principles, constitutional petitions seeking regularisation are not maintainable. Furthermore, regularisation is a policy matter requiring statutory backing, a transparent process, and cannot be claimed as a vested right solely on the basis of long service or through the invocation of Article 25 of the Constitution. The court held that contract employees engaged directly or through third parties have no automatic right to be regularised without a valid law, rule, or institutional policy. Consequently, all the petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against a public limited company devoid of statutory rules for the regularisation of contractual or third-party employees?
  • Does an employee hired on a contractual basis have a vested or fundamental right to seek regularisation solely on the basis of long-standing service in the absence of a statutory backing or institutional policy?
  • Whether the principle of discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 can be invoked to claim regularisation where previous regularisations were not based on a valid law or policy?
  • Are disputes concerning the regularisation of workers engaged through third-party service providers open to determination by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State and others2024 SHC 1296 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-25
  superdarireturn of seized vehiclecontrol of narcotic substancesquashing of orderinterim custodyproclaimed offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging an order that dismissed the applicant's plea for the return of a seized vehicle involved in a narcotics case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. The core legal question concerned whether a vehicle seized in a drug case can be released on supardari to a person who was last in possession and subsequently acquitted, while the registered owner remains an absconder. The Sindh High Court held that since the applicant was acquitted of the criminal charges and the intermediate possessor submitted a no-objection affidavit, the continued detention of the vehicle served no useful purpose and risked causing undue depreciation. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the release of the vehicle on supardari subject to furnishing surety and depositing original documents pending the appearance of the registered owner, thereby establishing principles regarding interim custody of seized property where the possessor is exonerated.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle seized under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act be released on superdari to a person other than the registered owner?
  • Does the acquittal of an accused person from a criminal case entitle them to claim custody of a vehicle seized during the investigation?
  • Whether the continued detention of a seized vehicle in police custody is justified when the registered owner is an absconder but the possessor has been acquitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State & another2024 SCP 210, 2024 SCMR 1567, PLJ 2025 SC (Cr.C.) 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-03
  pre-arrest baildishonour of chequeprohibitory clausecriminal breachsecurity cheque
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court declining pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonour of a cheque. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a cheque given as a guarantee or security rather than towards the repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation attracts the penal provisions of Section 489-F PPC, and whether bail should be granted when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the impugned order and granting bail to the petitioner. The court held that a tentative assessment of the record showed the cheque was issued as a security, which prima facie does not attract Section 489-F PPC, and reiterated that Section 489-F is not meant to be used for the recovery of money. Furthermore, since the maximum punishment does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception.

  Questions settled

  • Does a cheque issued as a guarantee or security attract the penal provisions of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be utilized as a mechanism for the recovery of alleged amounts?
  • Does the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the general rule regarding the grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar through LRs and others vs Ali Sher and others2024 YLR 2289 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Dar vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Affairs, Islamabad and 06 others2024 IHC 16, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 123, 2024 YLR 1250 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and others vs Govt. of KPK Peshawar Through Chief2024 PHC 280, 2025 PLD Peshawar 84 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and others vs Custodian Evacuee Property, Azad2024 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 19 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Ali vs Lahore High Court, Lahore through Registrar2024 PLC (C.S.) 198 · Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 2022-09-16
  premature retirementcivil servanttwenty years servicepublic interestservice tribunalshow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a Civil Judge, filed an appeal before the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal assailing a show-cause notice, a notification retiring him from service under Section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and an order dismissing his departmental representation. The core legal question was whether the provisions of Section 12(1)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, could be validly invoked against a civil servant who had not completed twenty years of service qualifying for pension or other retirement benefits. The Tribunal held that one of the mandatory pre-requisites for invoking Section 12(1)(i) is the completion of twenty years of service by the civil servant, which was admittedly not satisfied in this case as the appellant had only rendered around seventeen years of service at the time of retirement. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings and the resulting retirement notification were illegal and without lawful authority. The Tribunal laid down the principle that the pre-requisites contained in Section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, including the completion of twenty years of service, must co-exist, and failure to fulfill any mandatory condition vitiates the retirement proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Section 12(1)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 can be invoked against a civil servant who has not completed twenty years of service?
  • What are the essential pre-requisites for retiring a civil servant under Section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • Is retirement under Section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 considered a punishment?
  • What is the effect on subsequent orders when the initial proceedings under Section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 are held to be illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar & others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1342 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anees and another vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1660 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-08-28
  narcotics possessionconscious possessionsearch warrantcriminal appealbenefit of doubtsanctity of homepolice testimonyControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of narcotics recovered from a residential house. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved conscious possession beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the failure to obtain a search warrant for a residential premises vitiated the conviction. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' ownership or exclusive possession of the house, nor did it prove conscious possession of the contraband. Furthermore, the court emphasized that while Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 allows for searches without warrants in emergencies, the failure to record reasons for bypassing this requirement in a residential setting violated the sanctity of the home and Article 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, ruling that material contradictions in police testimony and the lack of independent witnesses rendered the prosecution's case unreliable. The appellants were acquitted, affirming that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of narcotics from a residential house without a search warrant, absent recorded reasons for urgency, violate the sanctity of the home?
  • Is the mere presence of an accused in a house sufficient to establish conscious possession of narcotics found therein?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions in the testimonies of police witnesses regarding the recovery proceedings?
  • Is the failure to join independent witnesses in a recovery from a residential house fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad and another vs The State2024 YLR 359 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-06
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailfurther inquirypolice investigationfalse implicationmurdercommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This common order disposes of criminal bail applications arising from an FIR registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the applicants, along with co-accused, entered a house and fatally shot two individuals due to an agricultural land dispute. The applicants contended they were falsely implicated, pointing to an independent police inquiry that exonerated them and led the investigating officer to recommend disposal of the case under cancelled "A" Class of Police Rules. The High Court observed that the applicants belonged to different castes than the main accused and had no apparent motive. Crucially, the brother of one of the deceased stated that the complainant was not an eye-witness and had falsely implicated the applicants. The Court held that while an investigating officer's opinion is not binding on courts, it is a highly relevant circumstance at the bail stage. Finding the case to be one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail of two applicants and granted post-arrest bail to the third.

  Questions settled

  • To what extent is the opinion or report of an investigating officer binding on a court when deciding a bail application?
  • Can a court consider an independent police inquiry report exonerating the accused as a relevant circumstance for granting bail?
  • Does a statement by a close relative of the deceased casting doubt on the complainant's presence at the crime scene justify the grant of bail under the rule of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anayet Gondal vs The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore2024 LHC 1795, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1130 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-25
  back benefitsreinstatementintervening periodgainful employmentservice appealdiscriminationconstitutional equality
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal assails the orders whereby the appellant's representations for treating the intervening period from dismissal to reinstatement as on duty and for the grant of back benefits were declined. The core legal questions are whether an employee reinstated into service is entitled to back benefits for the intervening period, and whether denial of such benefits without proof of gainful employment is sustainable. The Lahore High Court held that the grant of back benefits is the rule and denial is an exception applicable only upon proof that the employee remained gainfully employed during the intervening period, and that subjecting the appellant to differential treatment violates the equality clause. The key principle laid down is that where an illegal dismissal is struck down and a civil servant is treated as remaining in service, the consequential relief of back benefits must follow unless gainful employment elsewhere is established, and limitation cannot bar a valid and established recurring financial entitlement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee reinstated into service after setting aside of dismissal is entitled to back benefits for the intervening period?
  • Is the grant of back benefits considered a rule and its denial an exception dependent on proof of gainful employment?
  • Does the denial of back benefits to a reinstated employee while granting them to similarly placed colleagues constitute unconstitutional discrimination under Article 25?
  • Can the plea of limitation be used to defeat a well-established and valid claim for service back benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ammar Shafi & 02 others, Wajid Hussain vs The State &2024 LHC 6125 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin, Lyallpur Town, Faisalabad vs The Cir (WithholdingPTCL 2024 CL. 665 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-09-12Read full judgment →