Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Mohsin Raza Gondal and others vs Sardar Mahmood and others2024 SCP 308, 2025 SCMR 104, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil petitions under Article 185(3) of the Constitution were filed challenging a High Court judgment that set aside the regularization of contractual employees (BS-16 to BS-18) in the Bureau of Emigration & Overseas Employment and referred their cases to the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC). The core legal questions were whether a Cabinet Sub-Committee has lawful authority to regularize contractual employees in BS-16 and above bypassing FPSC examinations and statutory recruitment rules, and whether an illegal regularization can be shielded under the doctrine of past and closed transactions. The Supreme Court held that initial appointments to BS-16 and above must strictly follow competitive examinations by the FPSC pursuant to Article 242 of the Constitution, the Civil Servants Act 1973, and the APT Rules 1973. The Cabinet Sub-Committee lacked jurisdiction over posts in BS-16 and above, rendering its recommendations void ab initio. The Court affirmed that void actions cannot be protected as past and closed transactions, dismissed the petitions, and upheld the reference to the FPSC.
Questions settled- Does a Cabinet Sub-Committee have the lawful authority to regularize contractual employees in Basic Pay Scales 16 and above bypassing the Federal Public Service Commission?
- Does the regularization of a contractual employee constitute a fresh appointment into the civil service stream?
- Can an appointment or regularization that is void ab initio be protected under the doctrine of past and closed transactions?
- Are posts in Basic Pay Scale 16 and above required to be filled through tests and examinations conducted by the Federal Public Service Commission unless expressly excluded?
- Mohsin Abbas vs Suzuki Motors Company Ltd & another2024 IHC 28, 2025 PLD Islamabad 14, 2025 CLD 111 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the dismissal of a consumer complaint regarding the non-delivery of booked vehicles. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellant qualified as a "consumer" under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995, whether non-delivery of goods constitutes an "unfair trade practice," and whether the Consumer Court erred by applying definitions from the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 to restrict the scope of the consumer law. The Court held that the appellant was a consumer and that the failure to deliver goods after payment constitutes an unfair trade practice. It ruled that the Consumer Court improperly borrowed definitions from the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, emphasizing that statutory definitions are confined to their respective enactments. The Court further clarified that compensation under Section 9(3) of the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995 is independent of criminal conviction. The key principle laid down is that consumer protection legislation is social welfare law requiring a liberal, purposive interpretation to protect consumers from exploitation, and that such statutes must be construed to achieve their stated objectives rather than through restrictive, technical readings.
Questions settled- Does the non-delivery of booked goods by a trader constitute an unfair trade practice under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995?
- Can definitions from the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 be imported to interpret the scope of 'consumer' under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995?
- Is the power of the Consumer Court to award compensation under Section 9(3) of the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995 conditional upon the conviction of the respondent?
- Does a person who has paid for goods but has not yet received delivery qualify as a 'consumer' under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995?
- Mohibullah alias Gandhgeer and others vs The State2024 MLD 525 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-24Read full judgment →
- Mohib Ijaz vs Mujtaba-ul-Rehman and 3 others2024 MLD 1005 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kotli, whereby a complaint filed by the non-petitioner under Section 203-E of the Criminal Procedure Code was declared maintainable and further proceedings were initiated. The core legal question involved whether the trial court erred in issuing process and holding the complaint maintainable despite a prior dismissal of an application for registration of a criminal case and allegations regarding property and easement disputes. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the trial court committed no illegality or perversity as a prima facie case was established through the preliminary inquiry report showing damage to property, and that the accused had an alternate remedy by moving an application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure if conviction was unlikely. The key principles laid down are that the issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires only a prima facie evaluation based on cursory evidence without requiring a full trial, and that the existence of parallel remedies or rejected FIR applications does not bar the statutory right of a complainant to pursue a direct complaint.
Questions settled- Whether the issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires a full-dress rehearsal of evidence?
- Can a direct criminal complaint proceed when an application for registration of an FIR has previously been dismissed by a Justice of Peace?
- What is the appropriate remedy for an accused facing a complaint where there is no probability of conviction?
- Whether a preliminary inquiry report indicating damage to property constitutes a sufficient ground for a trial court to admit a complaint?
- Mohib & another vs The State2024 SHC 1134 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This post-arrest bail application under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arose from a murder case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Umerkot City. The applicants sought release on grounds of delay in registering the FIR, admit enmity between parties, and lack of necessity for further investigation while in custody. The prosecution opposed the application, citing specific nomination of the applicants in the FIR, recovery of crime weapons, and supporting ocular and medical evidence. The Sindh High Court reviewed the record and observed that the applicants were directly accused of firing upon the victim resulting in fatal injuries, backed by eyewitness accounts and medical evidence. Considering the severity of the offense, the High Court refused post-arrest bail to the applicants at this stage. However, the High Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within two months, warning that failure to comply would result in administrative referral to MIT-II.
Questions settled- Whether an accused nominated for firing fatal injuries in a murder case supported by eyewitness and medical evidence is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Whether the trial court can be directed to conclude a trial within a specified timeframe while refusing post-arrest bail to the accused?
- Mohammed Zubair vs State through Advocate-General Azad Jammu and Kashmir and 10 others2024 SC AJK 10 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Mohammad Waqas Malik vs Government of Azad Jammu & Kashmir2024 PLJ AJ&K 82 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Mohammad Tarique Khan vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.2024 PLC (C.S) 91 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order disposed of three interim injunction applications filed by the plaintiff and an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by the defendants seeking rejection of the plaint. The plaintiff, an employee of Trading Corporation of Pakistan, challenged the withholding of his Eid assistance/bonus and his deferment from promotion due to pending disciplinary proceedings, following an exoneration in an earlier inquiry and the suspension of a subsequent show-cause notice by the court. The defendants contended that the suit was barred under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) CPC, and Order VII, Rule 11 CPC on the ground of res judicata. The High Court held that pendency of departmental or disciplinary proceedings is not a lawful ground to deny or defer promotion if an employee otherwise meets the criteria, as a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Court also held that Eid assistance and bonuses are treated at par with salary and cannot be withheld absent termination. Finding distinct causes of action, the Court dismissed the rejection application and directed the release of withheld bonuses and consideration of the plaintiff for promotion on merit.
Questions settled- Can an employee's promotion be deferred or denied solely on the ground of pending departmental or disciplinary proceedings?
- Can Eid assistance or bonuses be withheld from an employee during the pendency of disciplinary inquiries when the employee is not terminated?
- Does the withdrawal or adjudication of an earlier suit challenging a show-cause notice bar a subsequent suit concerning deferment of promotion under Order II Rule 2 or Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Mohammad Shafeeq and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 128 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-24Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Saeed Mughal vs Mian Mohammad Latif and others2024 IHC 226, 2025 MLD 804 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-11-19Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Ramzan Khokhar vs Mohammad Riaz and others2024 IHC 100, 2024 CLC 1881, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 309 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-14Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Qasim and Another vs Gulshan-e-Faisal and Four (4) Others2024 SHC 102 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-06Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Nawaz vs Mohammad Shakeel and 4 others2024 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 1, 2025 CLD 296 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-01-24Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Juman Khaskheli vs The State2023 SHC 447, 2024 YLR 1818 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody, chain of custody, and safe transmission of the recovered narcotic substance from the time of recovery to its receipt at the chemical examiner's office. The Sindh High Court held that material discrepancies in the testimonies of the police officials, the failure to examine the Malkhana incharge or produce evidence of safe custody during the interim period, and contradictions regarding the delivery of the sample parcel shattered the credibility of the prosecution's case. Setting aside the conviction, the court laid down the principle that in narcotics cases, the prosecution must strictly establish every link in the chain of custody and safe transmission, and any missing link or reasonable doubt in this regard entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to establish the safe custody and safe transmission of a narcotic sample parcel entitle the accused to an acquittal?
- Whether contradictions between the testimonies of the Investigating Officer and the recovery mashir regarding the delivery of the sample to the chemical laboratory render the recovery doubtful?
- Is the mere recovery of narcotics sufficient for conviction without proof of safe custody in the Malkhana?
- What is the effect of failing to examine the Malkhana incharge to prove the safe custody of contraband?
- Mohammad Ismail vs University of Management Sciences Kotli through Registrar, and 6 others2024 PLJ AJ&K 147 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Mohammad Ishfaq vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2024 IHC 138 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mohammad Asif vs The State2024 SHC 1020 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Mohammad Asif, who is charged with an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought bail after his previous applications were rejected by the trial court and the Court of Sessions. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the delay in the commencement of the trial and the prosecution's failure to procure witnesses, despite the applicant being in custody. The High Court observed that the FIR was registered with a significant delay of over two months without explanation. Furthermore, the court noted that the prosecution had failed to progress the trial or frame charges, and the complainant had been avoiding appearance. The Court held that keeping an accused incarcerated indefinitely without trial progress is impermissible. Consequently, the Court granted bail, ruling that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prosecution's case rested on documentary evidence already in its custody.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to procure witnesses and commence a trial justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused be kept in custody indefinitely when the prosecution's case relies on documentary evidence already in its possession?
- Does a significant, unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Moatabar Khan vs Zaheer Abbas and another2024 MLD 1394 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Sessions Judge, Gilgit. The respondent was accused in an FIR involving charges of murder and attempted murder, specifically implicated under Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for abetment. The petitioner argued that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause and that the respondent's presence was established by witnesses. Conversely, the respondent contended that the primary eye-witness had not implicated him in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that no grounds for cancellation existed. The Court held that the bail order was sound, noting the lack of direct evidence against the respondent and the omission of his name in the eye-witness's statement. The Court reaffirmed that bail cancellation requires proof of specific grounds, such as misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, or the order being patently illegal, none of which were established by the petitioner. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- What are the established legal grounds for the cancellation of bail previously granted to an accused?
- Does the absence of an accused's name in a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify maintaining a bail order?
- Is the mere invocation of the prohibitory clause in an FIR sufficient ground to cancel bail without evidence of misuse of liberty or tampering?
- Miss Shabnam Riaz vs Naila Karim and another2024 LHC 6096, 2025 MLD 707 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This transfer application was filed under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the transfer of a private criminal complaint for defamation from the trial court to another court of competent jurisdiction based on alleged judicial bias and prejudice. The High Court examined whether the applicant established a reasonable apprehension of being denied a fair trial as guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that transfer of a case on grounds of bias requires clear, credible evidence rather than bald assertions, conjectures, or unsubstantiated allegations. An apprehension of bias must be reasonable and grounded in established facts demonstrating a real likelihood of personal prejudice that impairs judicial impartiality. Finding no material on record to substantiate the allegations against the trial judge, the High Court dismissed the application in limine while directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings within three months.
Questions settled- What standard of proof is required to justify the transfer of a criminal case on grounds of judicial bias?
- Can a criminal case be transferred from a trial court under Section 526 Cr.P.C. based on bald allegations of prejudice without supporting evidence?
- How does Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply to applications seeking the transfer of a pending trial?
- Miss Nigareen Zeb vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secratery Home & Tribal Affairs Department, Peshawar & others2024 PHC 242, 2024 MLD 1801, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 16 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-06-27Read full judgment →
- Misree Khan & others vs Abdul Ghafoor & others2024 SCP 384, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 24, 2025 PLJ SC 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the rejection of a plaint on the grounds of limitation. The petitioners challenged the rejection of their suit, which sought a declaration regarding the illegality of certain mutations sanctioned in 1975. The core legal questions addressed were whether the plaint was barred by limitation and whether a first appeal is maintainable against an order rejecting a plaint passed by a court exercising revisional jurisdiction. The Court held that the plaint was indeed time-barred, as the cause of action had accrued well before the suit was instituted. Regarding the second question, the Court clarified that an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, while classified as a decree under Section 2(2), is not appealable under Section 96 when passed by a court exercising revisional jurisdiction, as that jurisdiction is not original. The key principle laid down is that while a revisional court's rejection of a plaint constitutes a decree, it is not subject to first appeal; the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved party in such instances is a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.
Questions settled- Is a plaint liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the suit is instituted beyond the limitation period?
- Does an order rejecting a plaint passed by a court exercising revisional jurisdiction constitute a decree appealable under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a second revision application permissible under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy for an aggrieved party against an order of rejection of plaint passed by a court in its revisional jurisdiction?
- Mishal Jawaid D/o Jawaid vs Umer Jamshed2024 SHC 542 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-23Read full judgment →
- Mirza Rizwan vs The News International, Lahore2024 PLC 55 · Implementation Tribunal For Newspaper Employees · 2023-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed by a former Sub-Editor against a newspaper management seeking recovery of outstanding salaries, allowances, and other dues amounting to Rs. 1,399,347/- under the 7th Wage Board Award. The core legal questions involved whether a contractual newspaper employee attains the status of a permanent employee, whether such an employee is entitled to benefits under the 7th Wage Board Award, and whether the Implementation Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. The Tribunal held that the petitioner, having served continuously for over 14 years on a permanent nature job, acquired the status of a permanent employee and was fully entitled to the benefits of the 7th Wage Board Award, notwithstanding any contractual terms. The Tribunal laid down that statutory provisions regarding newspaper employees override inconsistent contractual terms, and that contractual newspaper employees are eligible for Wage Board Award benefits.
Questions settled- Whether a contractual newspaper employee can attain the status of a permanent employee after continuous service?
- Is a newspaper employee working on a contract basis entitled to claim benefits under the 7th Wage Board Award?
- Do the provisions of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 override inconsistent terms in a contract of service?
- Mir Zaman (late) through his legal heirs and others vs M. Aslam and 022024 SHC 958 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-18Read full judgment →
- Mir Wais vs Naseebullah and 3 others2024 MLD 462 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-31Read full judgment →
- Mir Muhammad s/o Mir Hassan vs The State through Prosecutor General2024 SCP 62, 2024 SCMR 805 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenged the High Court's order declining pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was nominated in an FIR for attempted murder and other offences. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the contradictions between the FIR allegations, the medico-legal report, and the findings of a Special Medical Board. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the ad-interim bail previously granted. The Court reasoned that the significant discrepancies—specifically the divergence between the firearm injury alleged in the FIR and the medical evidence, coupled with the Special Medical Board's conclusion that the injuries were fabricated—warranted further inquiry. The Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is intended to protect innocent individuals from mala fide prosecution. It established that while the gravity of an accusation is relevant, it does not preclude bail when reasonable grounds exist to suggest false implication or ulterior motives, and that the investigative role of the police should not be interfered with unless mala fide or abuse of power is evident.
Questions settled- Does a significant discrepancy between the FIR allegations and the medical evidence constitute grounds for further inquiry in a pre-arrest bail application?
- What is the scope of judicial intervention in the investigation process conducted by the police?
- Is the gravity of an accusation the sole determinant for refusing pre-arrest bail when reasonable grounds for false implication exist?
- Can the findings of a Special Medical Board regarding the fabrication of injuries be considered during the tentative assessment for bail?
- Mir Muhammad and others vs The State2024 PCRLJ 370 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for the possession of narcotics under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of narcotics beyond reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the chain of custody and the reliability of police-only evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, setting aside the convictions and acquitting the appellants. The Court reasoned that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and secure transmission of the narcotics samples to the chemical examiner, creating a fatal gap in the chain of custody. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the failure to associate independent witnesses in a populated area, coupled with material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, rendered the case doubtful. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody for narcotics samples to sustain a conviction and that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not concession.
Questions settled- Does a failure to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotics samples to the chemical examiner vitiate a conviction?
- Is the prosecution required to associate independent witnesses when a recovery is made in a populated area?
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of police officials when material contradictions exist in the prosecution's evidence?
- Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
- Mir Khan s/o Liaquat Ali Jakhrani vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 SHC 138 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-15Read full judgment →
- Mir Hussain Kiani and 3 others vs Additional District Judge Muzaffarabad, Azad Jammu& Kashmir and 12 others2024 PLJ AJ&K 156 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Mir Hassan vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 3 others2024 PLC (C.S.) 967 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition sought a declaration that the petitioner was eligible for appointment to a ministerial post in the Sindh Police Department under the 'Son Quota' policy, as prescribed by Standing Order No. 260/2011. The core legal question was whether this Standing Order, issued by the Inspector General of Police, constituted a valid legal basis for recruitment. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Standing Order was a nullity in the eyes of the law because it was issued without the mandatory approval of the Provincial Government. The Court emphasized that under Section 12 of the Police Act, 1861, the Inspector General of Police lacks the authority to frame such orders regarding the organization and distribution of the police force without provincial government approval. Furthermore, the Court clarified that there is no recognized concept of 'Son Quota' in service jurisprudence, and recruitment must strictly adhere to competitive merit-based processes as defined by the relevant recruitment rules. Consequently, the petitioner could not claim a legal right to appointment based on an invalid administrative order.
Questions settled- Whether a Standing Order issued by the Inspector General of Police regarding recruitment is valid without the approval of the Provincial Government?
- Does the concept of 'Son Quota' exist in service jurisprudence for appointments in the Police Department?
- Can a petitioner claim a right to appointment based on an administrative order that has been declared a nullity by the Supreme Court?
- Mir Hassan vs P.O Sindh & others2024 SHC 842 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-31Read full judgment →
- Mir Hammal Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan, thr. Secretary, Islamabad and others2024 SCP 403, 2025 SCMR 584 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a civil appeal arising from the dismissal of an election petition by the Election Tribunal Balochistan under Section 139 of the Elections Act, 2017. The appellant challenged the election of the returned candidate from constituency PB-28 Kech-IV, alleging illegal and corrupt practices, bogus voting with polling staff connivance at three polling stations, and disproportionately high voter turnout. The Supreme Court addressed whether corrupt and illegal practices were established and the effect of failing to submit original, duly sworn affidavits of witnesses under Section 144(2)(a) of the Elections Act, 2017. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that allegations of corrupt and illegal practices constitute quasi-criminal charges requiring strict, cogent proof beyond reasonable doubt, which the appellant failed to provide. Furthermore, producing only photocopies or marked notarized documents rather than original sworn affidavits failed the mandatory statutory requirements, rendering the evidence inadmissible. Conduct prescribed to be performed in a specific manner must be performed in that manner or treated as non-est.
Questions settled- What is the standard of proof required to establish a charge of corrupt and illegal practices in an election petition?
- Whether the failure to submit original affidavits sworn before an Oath Commissioner under Section 144(2)(a) of the Elections Act, 2017 renders the evidence inadmissible?
- Can a document merely marked or identified as a photocopy during cross-examination be relied upon as valid substantive evidence without meeting the requirements of secondary evidence?
- Mir Agha and another vs The State2024 YLR 2204 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-I Quetta, which convicted the appellants under Sections 302(b), 387, and 404 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, extortion, and misappropriation of property. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and recoveries of cash and a pistol. The High Court, on reappraisal of the evidence, found significant contradictions between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony regarding the time of death. The Court also noted that the investigation was highly deficient, failing to examine the relief security guard. Furthermore, the recoveries were deemed doubtful, and the CCTV footage was unreliable as the culprits' faces were muffled. Applying the established principle of criminal jurisprudence, the Court held that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and even a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and the convictions were set aside.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction can be sustained on circumstantial evidence when there are material contradictions between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony?
- Can an extra-judicial confession and subsequent recovery of items support a conviction if the recovery is doubtful and the confession is not recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the evidentiary value of CCTV footage where the suspects' faces are muffled and no identification parade or verification of the source was conducted?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if there is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
- Mir Abdul Qayoom vs Muhammad Aslam and others2024 SHC 624, 2025 CLC 290 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-31Read full judgment →
- Minnahil Ali D/o Muhammad Ali vs Asad Ali Malik2024 SHC 540 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-24Read full judgment →
- Ministry of Interior Employees Cooperative Housing Society vs Capital2024 IHC 198, 2025 CLC 75 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-07Read full judgment →
- Millat Tractors Limited vs Federal Board of Revenue & others2023 LHC 1332, 2024 PTD 670 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-08Read full judgment →
- Millat Law College and others vs The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, etc2024 LHC 3476, 2024 PLJ Lahore 719 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-15Read full judgment →
- Mihral and another vs Mst. Zargul and another2024 PLD Balochistan 158 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-29Read full judgment →
- Miandad vs Muhammad Akbar2024 YLR 1493 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-07Read full judgment →
- Miandad Chandio vs The State2024 YLR 881 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court for offences including murder and abetment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the evidentiary challenges presented. The High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, setting it aside and acquitting the appellant. The Court reasoned that the prosecution's case was severely undermined by an unexplained four-day delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), which indicated deliberation rather than spontaneity. Furthermore, the Court found the identification of the accused in the dark via solar light unreliable, and noted that prosecution witnesses made dishonest improvements to their statements to align with medical evidence. The Court reiterated the principle that recovery of a weapon is merely corroborative and cannot sustain a conviction when the substantive evidence is discredited. Ultimately, the Court emphasized that any reasonable doubt arising from the prosecution's evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused, as the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the recovery of a weapon when the substantive ocular evidence is found unreliable?
- What is the legal effect of dishonest improvements made by prosecution witnesses on the credibility of their testimony?
- Are the ingredients of abetment under Section 107 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 satisfied if the accused is merely present at the crime scene without active participation?
- Mian Zaheer Abbas Rabbani vs The State, etc2024 LHC 5077, 2025 PLD Lahore 98, 2025 PLJ Lahore 271 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-13Read full judgment →
- Mian Shahzad Aslam, (CEO) Nazir Cotton Mills Limited vs Hod-2024 CLD 849 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2024-02-29Read full judgment →
- Mian Shabir Asmail vs Federation of Pakistan through Chief Secretary and others2024 LHC 1242 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-19Read full judgment →
- Mian Shabbir Asmail vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary2024 LHC 236 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mian Sadiq Hussain and another vs Allied Bank Pakistan Limited and another2024 CLD 883 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-06Read full judgment →
- Mian Raza Jillani and others vs Province of Punjab through its Chief2024 LHC 786, 2024 PLJ Lahore 279 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mian Dawood Advocate High Court, Lahore and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/o Law and Justice, Islamabad and another2024 SCP 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the ongoing proceedings initiated by petitions filed by legal practitioners regarding the independence of the judiciary and allegations of interference. Following a previous order, the Court reviewed proposals submitted by the five High Courts concerning the issues at hand. The Court also acknowledged the involvement of the Pakistan Bar Council and the Supreme Court Bar Association, noting that while the former has submitted proposals, the latter requires further time. The Court addressed numerous applications from various bar councils and associations seeking to be joined as parties, ruling that it would only entertain such applications to the extent of considering the proposals contained therein. To streamline the process, the Court encouraged these bodies to consolidate their submissions into a single document, though separate filings remain permissible. Furthermore, the Court directed the Attorney-General for Pakistan to submit proposals on behalf of the Federation and specifically mandated a formal response to the allegations raised in the letter of the six judges of the Islamabad High Court against the Federation or its agencies before the next hearing date.
Questions settled- To what extent will the Court entertain applications from bar councils and associations seeking to be joined as parties in proceedings concerning judicial independence?
- Is the Federation required to submit a formal response to allegations raised by High Court judges against government agencies in the context of ongoing judicial proceedings?
- What is the procedural expectation for bar councils and associations regarding the submission of proposals to the Supreme Court?
- Mian Abdul Ghaffar vs Mst. Kishwar Iqbal and 5 Others2022 LHC 4202, 2024 CLC 301 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-16Read full judgment →
- Mewa Khan vs The State2024 MLD 1467 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 6/9-C of the CNS Act, 1997, and sentencing him to life imprisonment with a fine. The prosecution alleged that 12 kilograms of chars were recovered from a rickshaw driven by the appellant. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered narcotic from the time of recovery to its receipt by the chemical examiner. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody, as the narcotics remained unaccounted for overnight with the complainant and were sent to the chemical examiner three days later without proper Malkhana entries or testimonies from the concerned officials. Consequently, the chemical report lost its legal value. The court laid down the principle that failure to prove safe custody and safe transmission of narcotics creates a reasonable doubt, rendering the chemical report unreliable and entitling the accused to an acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether failure to prove safe custody and safe transmission of a recovered narcotic renders the chemical examiner's report of no legal value?
- Does an unbroken chain of custody of narcotics from the stage of recovery till submission to the government analyst form the foundation of a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Can an accused be granted the benefit of the doubt and acquitted when the prosecution fails to account for the whereabouts of the seized narcotics before chemical analysis?
- Messrs. Galaxy Impex vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 SHC 690 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-27Read full judgment →
- Messrs, Sgec-Amc JV through Authorized Officer vs National Highway2024 CLD 301 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-07-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs Yunus Textile Mills Limited through Authorize Officer and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others2024 PTD 370 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs Yakin Co. through Proprietor vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division and Ex-Officio Chairman and 2 others2024 PTD 355 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs Xpert Securities Limited vs Director_Hod (Adjudication-I), Adjudication Division2024 CLD 869 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2024-02-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Waresa Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs The Collector of Customs, Port2024 PTD (Trib.) 573 · Customs Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Messrs Usman Ship Breakers through Proprietor vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary Ministry of Planning and Development, Balochistan and 4 others2024 PLD Balochistan 50 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Faraaz Shaikh vs Ms. Javeria Shahani & others2024 SHC 98, 2024 YLR 1330 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-25Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Danish Rehmani vs The State2024 MLD 474 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for murder and terrorism offences under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, alongside a conviction under the Sindh Arms Act. The core legal questions involve the reliability of identification parade evidence from a sole chance witness, the evidentiary value of an unrecorded extra-judicial confession made in police custody, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's identity reliably, given the delayed and flawed identification parade, the absence of an early description (hulia) in the FIR, and unreliable eyewitness testimony. The court also discarded the alleged police confession and noted serious gaps in the police investigation and recovery evidence. Reversing the conviction, the court laid down that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right, and that fleeting glances by a stranger witness without prior descriptive benchmarks or strict compliance with identification parade rules cannot sustain a capital conviction.
Questions settled- Can a capital conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a chance witness who identified the accused for the first time at a belated identification parade without having previously provided a description in the FIR?
- What is the evidentiary value of an alleged confession made by an accused while in police custody when it is not recorded before a magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of an accused entitle him to an acquittal as a matter of right?
- What degree of care and adherence to procedural guidelines is required by courts when evaluating identification parade evidence involving unknown accused persons?
- Messrs Urban Developers vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto-II, Lahore2024 PTD (Trib.) 270 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-11-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Tufail Chemical and Surfactants (Private) Limited through Company Chief Executive Officer vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Ministry of Law and others2024 PTD 793 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs Tradematics International, Karachi vs The Collector of Customs, MCC Appraisement-West Group-III, Custom House, Karachi and 2 others2024 PTD (Trib.) 1044 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2023-10-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs TPL Life Insurance Limited vs Director/HOD, Adjudication-I2024 CLD 1311 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-10-24Read full judgment →
- Messrs Telenor Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad and others2024 PTD 619 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs Telenor Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited through Manager Legal Affairs vs Pakistan Telecommunication Authority through Chairman2024 CLC 37 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-06-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sui Southern Gas Company Limited vs Executive Director, Adjudication-I, SECP, Islamabad2024 CLD 1050 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2024-01-22Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sui Northern Gas Pipe Lines Limited vs Commissioner Inland2024 PTD (Trib.) 1432 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2024-02-18Read full judgment →
- Messrs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Commissioner2024 CLD 1503 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-09-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs Shahbaz Ahmad vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Sargodha2024 PTD (Trib.) 1097 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-07-31Read full judgment →
- Messrs Shabbir Tiles and Ceramic Ltd. through Authorized Attorney vs Syed2024 YLR 1526 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal acquittal appeal was filed under section 417(2-A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the judgment of the trial court which acquitted the respondent of charges under sections 420, 468, and 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant contended that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the evidence and acquitted the respondent on technical grounds. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal order was perverse, capricious, or based on a misreading of evidence, thereby warranting appellate interference. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court’s judgment was well-reasoned and that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court reaffirmed the principle that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, and appellate courts should not interfere unless the judgment is perverse or arbitrary. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the golden rule of criminal jurisprudence that the benefit of any doubt in the prosecution's case must be extended to the accused, and the burden of proof remains strictly on the prosecution throughout the trial.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
- Does the burden of proof shift to the accused if they raise a defense plea?
- What is the significance of the double presumption of innocence in an appeal against acquittal?
- Messrs Shabbir Feed Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Multan vs The Commissioner Inland2024 PTD (Trib.) 511 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-04-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sara Enterprises Government Contractors through Proprietor vs Secretary Finance, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and 2 others2024 PLD Balochistan 13, 2024 PTD 196 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-31Read full judgment →
- Messrs Riaz Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 PTD 858 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Rehmani Dawakhana, Main Bazar Gandam Mandi, Kasur vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Lahore2024 PTD (Trib.) 253 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-11-24Read full judgment →
- Messrs Reckitt and Colman Pakistan Limited vs The Collector, Collectorate2024 PTD 176 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs Punjab Aluminum Extrusion vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Faisalabad2024 PTD (Trib.) 1037 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-08-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pakistan Telecommunication Company limited and others vs Universal Service Fund, Islamabad through Chief Executive Officer and others2024 CLD 1426, 2024 CLC 2002 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs Packages Limited through Senior Accountants vs Customs2024 PTD 1532 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs Options International (SMC Pvt.) Limited vs Competition Commission of Pakistan and another2024 CLD 874 · Competition Appellate Tribunal · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs Noor Ul Haq through Abdul Samad vs The Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary Balochistan and 2 others2024 PTD 342 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs Muhammad Ramzan & Company vs Federation of Pakistan2024 CLC 1394 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs Kurdish Mining Enterprises through Adnan Aziz Kurd and others vs Secretary Mines and Mineral, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and 12 others2024 CLC 1495 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-03-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs Kanpur Old Boys Association vs Messrs Karachi Metropolitan2024 SCMR 1361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an appeal concerning the cancellation of the allocation of an amenity plot by the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) to a charitable institution, the Kanpur Old Boys Association. The core legal questions involved whether the Provincial Ombudsman had jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute concerning the enforcement of contractual rights and whether KDA's actions constituted maladministration under the relevant statute, alongside issues of limitation and delay. The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction as the dispute pertained to contractual rights enforceable through a civil suit, rendering the Ombudsman's decision coram non judice, and noted that the complaint was barred by a significant delay contrary to the limitation period prescribed by law. The Court established the principle that the Provincial Ombudsman cannot assume the powers of a civil court to resolve contractual disputes or bypass statutory limitation periods, thereby upholding the High Court's judgment setting aside the concurrent decisions of the Ombudsman and the Governor, and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the Provincial Ombudsman has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving the enforcement of contractual rights?
- Does the non-fulfillment of a contractual obligation by a public authority constitute maladministration under the Establishment of the Office of Ombudsman for the Province of Sindh Act, 1991?
- Can a complaint be entertained by the Ombudsman after the expiration of the statutory limitation period prescribed under the Act?
- Whether the High Court can set aside the concurrent decisions of the Ombudsman and the Governor when the Ombudsman's decision is coram non judice?
- Messrs Kac-RMS (Joint Venture) through authorized representative vs National Highway Authority through Chairman and others2024 PLD Islamabad 213 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs Jamhex Company (Private) Limited and another vs Appellate2024 CLD 383 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-08-25Read full judgment →
- Messrs Jabbar Steel Industries Karachi vs The Commissioner Inland2024 PTD (Trib.) 435 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2020-10-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ibkb (Private) Limited through Director and another vs The Director, Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation Customs2024 PTD (Trib.) 393 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2023-08-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs Hum Network Limited vs Director/Hod, Adjudication Department-I2024 CLD 645 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-08-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs H.G. Markets (Private) Limited vs Commissioner-SMD, SECP and another2024 CLD 1381 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-09-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs Getz Pharma International FZ LLC through Authorized Attorney vs The Registrar of Trade Marks and another2024 CLD 1474 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Ir (Audit-05), Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar and another2024 PTD 1021 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-19Read full judgment →
- Messrs Friends Coal Company through Director vs The Government of Balochistan, Civil Secretariat through Secretary Mines and another2024 CLC 167 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs Faf Enterprises, Karachi vs The Principal Appraiser, MCC of Appraisement-Jiap, Karachi and another2024 PTD (Trib.) 191 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
- Messrs Essa Steel and another vs The Collector of Customs (Adjudication-2024 PTD (Trib.) 133 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2023-05-25Read full judgment →
- Messrs East West Insurance Company Limited vs Commissioner2024 CLD 755 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2024-04-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs Darson Securities (Pvt.) Limited vs Commissioner SMD, SECP2024 CLD 721 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-08-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs Dalda Foods Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan and another2024 PTD 156 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-18Read full judgment →
- Messrs Crescent Star Insurance Limited vs Securities and Exchange2024 CLD 1272 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-11-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs Crescent Fibres Ltd vs Commissioner Inland Revenue Lto, Lahore2024 PTD (Trib.) 277 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-11-02Read full judgment →
- Messrs Contractors Association of Balochistan through Authorized2024 PLD Balochistan 56 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-29Read full judgment →