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.

• Link Dot Net Telecom Limited vs Pakistan Telecommunication Authority2024 IHC 246 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-03Read full judgment →
• Liberty Power Tech Limited vs Commissioner Inland Revenue & Another2024 SHC 1174 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-29Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Khan Jahangiri vs IX Additional District Judge Karachi West &2024 SHC 546 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-15Read full judgment →
• Malik Panjwani & Another vs Farooq Nasir and Others2024 SHC 298, 2024 CLC 1896 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-17Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs Noor Ahmad2024 LHC 3063, 2024 PLJ Lahore 749 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali Shaheen vs State2024 SC AJK · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-03-04
  narcotics controlcriminal appealwitness credibilitypolice testimonysentencing mitigationProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Actindependent witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal appeals filed by the convict-appellant against judgments of the High Court, which upheld his convictions under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985 for heroin possession. The core legal questions involved whether minor contradictions in prosecution witness statements, the absence of independent witnesses as per Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and discrepancies in the weight of contraband samples sent for chemical analysis warranted acquittal. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that while the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the identified discrepancies in the evidence and witness statements constituted mitigating factors. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals regarding the convictions but partially accepted them to modify the sentences. The Court laid down that minor discrepancies in witness testimony do not invalidate the prosecution's case, police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony is reliable, and the absence of independent witnesses does not automatically undermine a case, particularly given public reluctance to testify. Finally, evidentiary discrepancies may justify a reduction in the quantum of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Do minor contradictions in prosecution witness statements necessitate the acquittal of an accused?
  • Can the testimony of police officials be relied upon in the absence of independent witnesses in narcotics cases?
  • Does a discrepancy in the weight of contraband samples sent for chemical analysis invalidate a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985?
  • Can evidentiary discrepancies serve as mitigating factors to reduce the quantum of a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali Khan vs Muhammad Akram & another2023 SCP 191, 2024 SCMR 1883 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-19
  specific performancereadiness and willingnessequitable reliefbreach of contractagreement to sellburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute over the specific performance of two agreements for the sale of a house. The plaintiff sought specific performance, alleging the defendant failed to obtain necessary clearances from the Capital Development Authority (CDA). The trial court decreed the suit, but the High Court set it aside, finding the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform his financial obligations. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the availability of funds to pay the second installment by the agreed date. Furthermore, the Court observed that the agreements contained no clause obligating the defendant to obtain an NOC before the transfer, and the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of dispatch for his alleged legal notice. Emphasizing that specific performance is an equitable remedy under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, the Court ruled that the plaintiff's failure to establish readiness and willingness barred the relief, and the equities favored the defendant.

  Questions settled

  • Is a plaintiff entitled to specific performance if they fail to prove the availability of funds to meet their contractual payment obligations?
  • Does the failure to produce postal receipts for a legal notice undermine a party's claim of having issued such notice?
  • Is the grant of specific performance a mandatory right or a discretionary equitable remedy?
  • Can a court grant specific performance if the plaintiff fails to establish readiness and willingness to perform their part of the agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali alias Liaquat and 4 others vs The State2024 MLD 670 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-17
  criminal appealpolice encounterreasonable doubtbenefit of doubtnon-examination of witnessdacoityidentification of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the trial court's judgment convicting the appellants for offences under Sections 395, 324, 353, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the alleged police encounter and the identification of the accused. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences. The Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed due to the failure to examine the initial complainant and the police constable who allegedly identified the appellants. Additionally, the Court found it highly improbable that a ten-minute exchange of gunfire involving sophisticated weapons resulted in no injuries to either party, casting significant doubt on the occurrence. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, rather than grace. Consequently, the appellants were acquitted, as the prosecution failed to meet the requisite standard of proof.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine a key witness who provided initial information to the police constitute a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the absence of injuries during a prolonged exchange of gunfire between police and suspects sufficient to create reasonable doubt regarding the occurrence of an encounter?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitle the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali alias Jajji and another vs The State and others2024 YLR 1949 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-10
  murder convictionocular evidencerelated witnessesmotiveappreciation of evidencecriminal appealenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder, while a connected revision petition seeks enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question concerns whether the appellant's conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is sustainable based on the ocular account and medical evidence, notwithstanding the prosecution's failure to establish the alleged motive and the fact that the eye-witnesses were related to the deceased. The Lahore High Court dismissed both the appeal and the revision petition, upholding the trial court's judgment. The Court held that the conviction was sound, as the ocular account provided by the eye-witnesses was consistent, straightforward, and corroborated by medical evidence. The Court affirmed the principle that the testimony of witnesses related to the deceased cannot be discarded solely on the basis of their relationship, provided their evidence is truthful and free from inherent infirmities. Furthermore, the Court established that a conviction can be sustained based on sufficient ocular and medical evidence even if the prosecution fails to prove the motive behind the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained if the prosecution fails to prove the motive?
  • Does the relationship between eye-witnesses and the deceased render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is a conviction based on ocular and medical evidence sufficient to uphold a sentence despite minor discrepancies in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat vs The State through Police Station Fatehpur Thakyala and 2 others2024 PCRLJ 1959 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-04-02
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusdelay in lodging FIRsearch and recoveryindependent witnessesidentification at nightacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir arose against the judgment of the Additional District Criminal Court, Kotli, which maintained the appellant's conviction and sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 20 of The Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Act 1985 and Section 382 of the Azad Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the appellant committed nighttime robbery and theft. The core legal questions pertained to the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, non-compliance with the mandatory search requirements under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the evidentiary value of uncorroborated nighttime identification without establishing any source of light, and the application of the maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus'. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to unexplained FIR delay, reliance on interested relatives for search and recovery without independent witnesses, absence of any established light source, and reliance on partially discarded hearsay evidence. Allowing the appeal, the Court acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in lodging a First Information Report on the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Whether recovery proceedings conducted without associating independent witnesses from the locality violate the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of visual identification of an accused at night when no source of light has been alleged or proved by the prosecution?
  • How does the application of the doctrine of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' affect the credibility of a prosecution witness who resorts to deliberate falsehood on material points?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Hussain vs The state2024 SCP 229, 2024 SCMR 1600 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-22
  double murderdeath penaltymitigating circumstancesimprisonment for lifecriminal appealsentence commutationeyewitness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner for the double murder of his nephew and sister, and the attempted murder of his niece-in-law. The core legal question concerned the validity of the conviction and the appropriateness of the death penalty in light of the evidence and the reported pardon by the legal heirs. The Supreme Court maintained the convictions, finding the prosecution's case—supported by consistent eyewitness testimony, forensic reports, and recovery of the weapon—proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Court exercised its discretion regarding the quantum of sentence. Applying the principle that a single mitigating circumstance is sufficient to avoid the death penalty, the Court held that the reported pardon by the legal heirs and the nature of the prior altercation between the parties constituted sufficient mitigating factors. Consequently, the Court converted the death sentences into imprisonment for life, while maintaining the other convictions and sentences, directing them to run concurrently with the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a death sentence be converted to life imprisonment based on a reported pardon by legal heirs even if formal compromise documents are not filed?
  • Does a single mitigating circumstance suffice to justify the imposition of life imprisonment instead of the death penalty?
  • Are sentences for multiple offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 required to run concurrently?
  Read full judgment →
• Latifa W/o Saeed and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 SHC 1182 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-21Read full judgment →
• Latif Hakeem vs Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 2 othersPTCL 2024 CL. 281 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Latif and others vs Abdul Nabi and others2024 MLD 1937 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-08-30Read full judgment →
• Late Sher Ayaz Khan @ Sheraz Khana through His L.Rs. & others vs Gul2024 SCP 401, 2025 SCMR 380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-09
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadsource of informationjumping demandcivil revisionbest evidence rule
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Court arose from a pre-emption suit regarding the sale of agricultural land. The core legal question centered on whether the pre-emptor had validly and immediately performed Talb-i-Muwathibat (the jumping demand) in accordance with the statutory requirements of the pre-emption law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the pre-emptor failed to prove the immediate making of Talb-i-Muwathibat, noting that consultations among the pre-emptor and witnesses prior to the demand negated its immediacy, and that the complete chain of the source of information was not established through the withholding of key witnesses. The Court reiterated that Talb-i-Muwathibat forms the mandatory foundation of a pre-emption claim; if it fails, the entire superstructure collapses and subsequent demands cannot cure the defect. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgments of the High Court and the appellate court were set aside, and the trial court's dismissal of the pre-emption suit was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Does prior consultation among a pre-emptor and witnesses before making a demand invalidate the requirement of an immediate Talb-i-Muwathibat?
  • Is proof of a complete and unbroken chain of the source of information regarding a sale transaction essential for establishing a valid Talb-i-Muwathibat?
  • What is the legal consequence on a pre-emption suit if the primary demand of Talb-i-Muwathibat is not proved in accordance with the law?
  • Does the failure to produce a primary witness or informer give rise to an adverse presumption under the law of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Land Mark Associates vs Abdul Malik & Others2024 SHC 554 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority through its Director General and another vs Chaudhary Hamayun Mahmood and another2024 LHC 2971 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Lahore College for Women University through its Vice Chancellor etc. vs Dr.2024 LHC 4010, 2024 PLJ Lahore 897, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1444 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-12
  Intra Court AppealService StatutesSelection BoardJudicial OverreachConstitutional JurisdictionRecruitment ProcessChancellor's Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenged a Single Judge's order directing the Lahore College for Women University to issue an appointment letter to the respondent for the post of Professor (BS-21). The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could substitute its opinion for the Selection Board’s assessment and direct an appointment, particularly when the Chancellor had ordered the post to be re-advertised due to procedural irregularities and conflicting recommendations between the Selection Board and the Syndicate. The Court held that the Single Judge exceeded its jurisdiction by arrogating the role of the appointing authority. It affirmed that evaluating candidate suitability is the exclusive domain of the institution's selection bodies, not the judiciary. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Chancellor’s decision, rendered under the relevant Service Statutes, was final and binding. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and dismissed the writ petition, establishing that judicial interference in recruitment processes is unwarranted absent a clear legal mandate to override the final authority of the Chancellor.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, direct an appointing authority to issue an appointment letter to a candidate?
  • Is the decision of the Chancellor, made under the Service Statutes of the Lahore College for Women University, final and binding regarding recruitment disputes?
  • Does the judiciary have the authority to substitute its opinion for that of a Selection Board regarding the suitability of a candidate for a teaching post?
  Read full judgment →
• Lady Doctor Getman Alla alias Aliya Wahab vs The State and others2024 PHC 62 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-28Read full judgment →
• Kousar Bibi vs The State and another2024 LHC 1103, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 736 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-05
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlfalse implicationvideography of police operationsfurther inquirytwo versionsdue processpolice accountability
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(1)-3(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, alleging false implication by police officials due to a prior grudge. The core legal question concerned whether the Petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting inquiry reports regarding the police's conduct and the alleged fabrication of the case. The Court held that the existence of two contradictory inquiry reports regarding the police's conduct created a case of two versions, necessitating further inquiry into the Petitioner's guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The judgment lays down the principle that in narcotics cases, law enforcement must utilize modern technology, specifically videography, to record search, seizure, and arrest operations to ensure transparency and prevent false implication. It further mandates that police teams must videograph operations or document reasons for failure to do so, and directs Special Courts to strictly enforce statutory provisions regarding the production of seized narcotics before the court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of conflicting inquiry reports regarding police conduct constitute a case of two versions under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be denied bail solely based on the criminal record of their family members?
  • Are police officers required to videograph narcotics recovery operations in the absence of a specific statutory mandate?
  • What are the obligations of Special Courts regarding the production of seized narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Kousar Abbas alias Piya vs The State, etc2024 LHC 6266, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 192 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-02
  criminal revisionJaifahmedical evidencebody cavityocular accountPakistan Penal Codeconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the petitioner under Sections 324, 337-C, 337-D, and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing injuries to the complainant. The core legal question was whether a stab wound in the left hypochondrium qualifies as Jaifah under the Pakistan Penal Code, and whether the conviction could be sustained despite the non-examination of the operating surgeon and the reliance on a photocopy of surgical notes. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the ocular account, corroborated by medical evidence, sufficiently established the nature of the injury. The court affirmed that an injury penetrating the body cavity where vital organs are located constitutes Jaifah, regardless of the non-production of the original surgical notes. The principle laid down is that where medical testimony confirms an injury penetrates a body cavity housing vital organs, it satisfies the criteria for Jaifah, and minor procedural irregularities in medical documentation do not vitiate the prosecution's case when the injury's nature is otherwise established.

  Questions settled

  • Does a stab wound in the left hypochondrium constitute Jaifah under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction for Jaifah be sustained if the operating surgeon is not examined as a witness?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the reliance on a photocopy of surgical notes, in the absence of the original, invalidate a conviction based on medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Kosar alias Munna vs The State2024 MLD 872 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-17
  police encounterterrorismocular evidencecorroborationcriminal appealfirearm recoveryforensic evidencemens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder and related offences arising from a police encounter. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the incident constituted an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the charges under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, relying on consistent eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and forensic reports linking the recovered weapon to the crime scene. However, the Court acquitted the appellant of charges under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, holding that the incident—a shootout during an escape attempt—lacked the specific object, intent, or design to create terror required by the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Ghulam Hussain v. State. The Court affirmed that corroboration is a rule of caution, not law, and that police evidence is admissible absent proof of enmity. Consequently, the convictions under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, were maintained, while the convictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does a shootout occurring during an attempt to escape police custody automatically constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Is the non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 fatal to the prosecution's case when other evidence is strong?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of police eyewitness testimony in the absence of proven enmity?
  • Does the rule of corroboration constitute a mandatory rule of law or a rule of caution?
  Read full judgment →
• Kiramat Khan vs The State and another2024 YLR 1529 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-16
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirysodomytentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.544 dated 02.11.2022, registered under Sections 506 and 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Sections 36, 38 and 53 of the Child Protection Act, at Police Station Regi, Peshawar, on charges of attempting sodomy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that since the medical report showed no signs of sodomy, the FSL report was negative for human semen, the complainant was not an eye-witness, and the accused had not confessed, the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry. The Court ruled that grant of bail in such circumstances is a matter of right rather than grace. The petition was consequently allowed, admitting the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing suitable surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does a negative medical report and FSL report in a sodomy case bring the matter within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the grant of bail considered a matter of right when a case falls within the ambit of further inquiry?
  • Whether the absence of a confession and lack of eyewitness testimony warrant the release of an accused on post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Khushal Ahmed, Ex-Junior Clerk, Office of The Superintendent of Police, Kotli vs Deputy Inspector General of Police Headquarter (CPO), Azad Govt Of State of Jammu & Kashmir and others2024 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 41 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  service tribunalpolice departmentefficiency and discipline rulesministerial staffde-novo inquiryremoval from servicespecial law versus general law
  Summary & questions settled

  The captioned appeals by leave of the Court arise out of judgments passed by the Service Tribunal regarding disciplinary proceedings against police departmental employees (Junior Clerks) removed or punished for misconduct and irregularities. The core legal questions involved whether ministerial and clerical staff of the police department fall under the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1992, or general efficiency and discipline laws, and whether the Service Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by permitting a de-novo inquiry. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that special laws like the Police Act and rules framed thereunder regarding efficiency and discipline prevail over general laws such as the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001 and AJ&K Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977, as previously established in case law, and that observations permitting de-novo inquiries on technical grounds do not amount to a binding mandatory direction. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the ministerial and clerical staff of the Police Department are governed by the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1992 or general laws?
  • Does the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001 apply to members of the police force and its establishment?
  • Can the Service Tribunal permit a de-novo inquiry when setting aside a departmental order on technical grounds?
  • Whether the Police Act and rules made thereunder regarding efficiency and discipline prevail as a special law over general service laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Khush Bakht Mirza vs The State & others2024 IHC 26, 2024 PCRLJ 1409 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-14
  quashment of FIRsecond FIRsame transactionconstitutional petitionabuse of processinvestigating officerpolice rulesproclaimed offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses petitions seeking the quashment of multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against the petitioners. The core legal questions involved whether an accused person can register a second FIR against the complainant to refute allegations in a pending case, whether a second FIR can be registered in respect of offences committed in the same transaction or occurrence, and the duties of an investigating officer upon discovering prior registered FIRs. The Court converted criminal miscellaneous petitions filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 into constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Holding that the registration of subsequent FIRs regarding the same transaction is illegal and a gross misuse of authority aimed at subverting the legal process, the Court quashed the impugned FIRs and laid down principles prohibiting multiple FIRs for a single occurrence, directing inquiries against delinquent police officials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the allegations in one FIR can be refuted through registration of another FIR by the accused person against the complainant?
  • Whether a second FIR can be registered in respect of offences committed in one transaction or the same occurrence?
  • What is the duty of the Investigating Officer if he is informed by the accused person that other FIRs have already been registered in respect of offences committed in one transaction or the same occurrence wherein investigations are in progress?
  • Can a petition filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 be converted into a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ali & others vs Miangul Adnan Aurangzeb (decd.) through LRs2024 SCP 375, 2025 SCMR 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-17
  suit for possessionburden of prooftitle to propertymesne profitsspecific reliefcivil revisiongift deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two direct appeals arising from a suit for possession of immovable property and recovery of mesne profits. The core legal question is whether a plaintiff, having instituted a suit for possession based on title, is entitled to a decree when they fail to establish that title, regardless of the defendant's possession status. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their ownership, as the alleged gift deed did not include the disputed property and other vital links in the chain of title were missing. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court and Appellate Court decrees, restoring the Trial Court's judgment dismissing the suit. The Court affirmed the principle that in a suit for possession based on title, the burden of proof rests entirely on the plaintiff to establish their own ownership. A plaintiff cannot succeed by relying on the weaknesses of the defendant's case; they must succeed on the strength of their own title. Furthermore, where a plaintiff’s title is clouded or disputed, a simple suit for possession is not maintainable without seeking a declaration of title.

  Questions settled

  • In a suit for possession based on title, can a plaintiff succeed by merely highlighting the weaknesses in the defendant's title?
  • Is a simple suit for possession maintainable when the plaintiff's title to the property is clouded or disputed?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the plaintiff to establish their title in a suit for possession under Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurram Sher Zaman vs Mirza Ikhtiar Baig & others2024 SHC 936 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-16Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bux vs The State2024 PCr. LJ 2014 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-19
  summoning material witnessesadditional evidencefair trialdue processcontradictory verification reportscriminal revisionanti-corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, facing trial in a corruption case, challenged an order of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption Court dismissing his application under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which sought to summon four new witnesses and re-examine an investigation officer. During trial, conflicting verification reports regarding the applicant's appointment orders had been submitted on record. The Sindh High Court held that the primary objective of criminal proceedings is to uncover the truth and ensure a just decision, and where new, contradictory evidence emerges, the court has the discretionary power and duty under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to summon essential witnesses. The High Court found that the trial court's order was arbitrary and failed to evaluate the necessity of summoning the witnesses, thereby violating the applicant's fundamental right to a fair trial under Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to summon the four proposed witnesses for examination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court is bound to summon additional witnesses under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 when their evidence is essential for the just decision of the case?
  • Does the emergence of conflicting verification reports during a trial necessitate the summoning and cross-examination of new witnesses to ensure a fair trial?
  • Can an order dismissing an application to summon material witnesses be set aside if the trial court fails to provide reasons for refusing the request?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh vs State and anotherPLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 21 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-14
  acquittalleave to appealdishonest improvementmedical evidenceadverse inferencewithholding evidencedouble presumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner-complainant filed petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the Lahore High Court's acquittal of two respondents accused of qatl-e-amd under Sections 302, 337-A(i), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court evaluated the prosecution's evidence and affirmed the High Court's findings. The Court noted that the eye-witness testimonies were highly unreliable: one injured witness's medical timeline was physically impossible and lacked proof of injury during the incident; the complainant made dishonest improvements during trial to align his testimony with medical evidence regarding the trajectory of the gunshot wounds; and a third eye-witness, despite being sworn in, was withheld from testifying about the occurrence, triggering an adverse inference. Additionally, the forensic report was negative. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and cannot be interfered with unless it is blatantly perverse, illegal, arbitrary, or shocking, which was not the case here.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of review for the Supreme Court when dealing with an appeal against an acquittal?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 if a sworn witness is withheld from testifying about the occurrence?
  • How do dishonest improvements made by a prosecution witness to align their testimony with medical evidence affect the credibility of their statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh alias Baboo vs The State2024 YLR 2839 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-08-30
  arms ordinanceunlicensed weaponrecovery witnesscriminal appealacquittalnon-production of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mastung, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance 1965 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of the unlicensed weapon and proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt without producing the recovery witnesses or exhibiting the weapon during trial. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case as the recovery witnesses were not produced and the weapon itself was not exhibited, relying merely on a recovery memo from a connected case. The court laid down the principle that mere presentation of a recovery memo without producing the recovery witnesses and exhibiting the weapon in court is insufficient to sustain a conviction for possession of an unlicensed weapon under the Arms Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under the Arms Ordinance can be sustained when the prosecution fails to exhibit the recovered weapon during the trial?
  • Is the presentation of a recovery memo from a connected case sufficient to prove the charge of possessing an unlicensed weapon without examining the recovery witnesses?
  • What is the effect of the non-production of marginal or recovery witnesses in an arms recovery case?
  Read full judgment →
• Khrum Shezad Zafar and 2 others vs Razia Begum and 2 others2024 PLD Balochistan 101 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-29Read full judgment →
• Khoula Siddiqui Advocate vs Tariq Bin Azad and others2024 SHC 40 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-26Read full judgment →
• Khizer Hayat and others vs The State etc2024 LHC 2590 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-27
  plea of alibibenefit of doubtchance witnessescall data recordpolice investigationmurder trialacquittalmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal appeal filed against the conviction and sentence under Sections 302(b) and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a criminal revision for enhancement of sentence arising from a private murder complaint. The core legal questions relate to the appreciation of a plea of alibi supported by call data records and police investigation findings, the reliability of chance witnesses, and the standard for granting the benefit of doubt. The Lahore High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, while dismissing the revision for enhancement of sentence. The court held that where an accused establishes a plea of alibi through call data records and supporting testimonies, corroborated by the investigating officer's finding of innocence, and the prosecution relies on unverified chance witnesses with unproven motive, the resulting serious doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right. The key principle laid down is that a well-substantiated plea of alibi coupled with reasonable doubts in the prosecution narrative entitles the accused to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the police opinion regarding the innocence of an accused can be considered along with tangible evidence for acquittal?
  • Can a plea of alibi supported by call data records and defence evidence override weak ocular testimony?
  • Is a prosecution witness considered a chance witness when no cogent reason is provided for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat vs The State etc2024 SCP 233, 2024 SCMR 1605, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-30
  pre-arrest bailcross-versionfurther inquirymala fidecriminal liabilitybail in cross-cases
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court declining pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Sections 448, 440, 511, 427, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the existence of a cross-version of the incident and family disputes regarding the property in question. The Supreme Court observed that the parties were involved in a long-standing family dispute over the management of a housing society, creating a strong possibility of false implication and mala fide intent. Furthermore, the Court noted the existence of a cross-version of the incident, which necessitates further inquiry to determine the aggressor. The Court held that in cases of counter-versions, bail is granted as a rule to allow for the recording of evidence at trial. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and granted pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where cross-versions exist, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is bail generally granted in cases involving cross-versions of the same incident?
  • Does the existence of a cross-version of an incident entitle an accused to bail on the grounds of further inquiry?
  • Can a court grant pre-arrest bail when there is a plausible claim of false implication due to family disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat vs Malik Akhtar Mehmood2024 SCP 156, 2024 SCMR 1191, 2024 SCMR 1208, 2024 PLJ SC 530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-15
  suit for recoverypro-notechequeOrder XXXVII CPCconcurrent findingsleave to appealarbitration agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's Regular First Appeal. The matter arose from a suit for recovery under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 based on a pro-note and cheque. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in upholding the trial court's decree despite allegations of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner admitted the execution of the pro-note, the agreement appointing arbitrators, and the issuing of the cheque. Moreover, the petitioner did not challenge the arbitrators' decision confirming his financial liability and admitted his liability in his testimony. Holding that concurrent findings of fact should not be interfered with unless perverse, arbitrary, or capricious, the Supreme Court found no illegality or infirmity in the High Court judgment, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts?
  • Can a summary suit for recovery based on a pro-note be decreed when the defendant admits execution of the instrument and financial liability?
  • Does an unproven assertion of non-reading or misreading of evidence justify setting aside concurrent judgments of lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat Farooka and Province of Punjab vs Government of Pakistan2024 CLC 932 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-29Read full judgment →
• Khial Muhammad vs The State2024 SCP 204, 2024 SCMR 1490, PLJ 2025 SC (Cr.C.) 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-23
  benefit of the doubtdelayed FIRocular testimonyforensic evidence delaymurder trialcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentence of death awarded to the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The appellant's conviction and murder reference were confirmed by the High Court. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined the record and noted multiple critical flaws in the prosecution's case, including an unexplained and substantial delay in lodging the First Information Report, the omission of eyewitnesses' names from the FIR coupled with a delayed recording of their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and an unexplained delay in sending the crime weapon and forensic samples for analysis. The Court held that these cumulative circumstances and evidentiary gaps created profound reasonable doubts regarding the guilt of the appellant. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt arising from the evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case?
  • Whether the belated recording of statements of eyewitnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affects their credibility?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in sending crime weapons and forensic samples for chemical analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Khayal Bacha vs Ijaz Hussain and another2024 YLR 2147 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-06-12
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtlast seen evidencecall data recordidentification paradeunauthorized investigationcriminal appealmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased and related offences, including robbery and arms possession. The case was an un-witnessed occurrence where the prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including 'last seen' testimony, call data records (CDR), and alleged recoveries. The Federal Shariat Court found that the investigation was severely flawed, notably being conducted by an unauthorized officer (a Head Constable) in violation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Act, 2017. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete, unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the crime. Key pieces of evidence, such as the CDR, identification parade, and recovery memos, were found to be inadmissible or unreliable due to legal infirmities, lack of corroboration, and tampering. Emphasizing that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events is incomplete or broken?
  • Is a Call Data Record (CDR) sufficient to prove guilt in the absence of call transcripts or end-to-end audio recordings?
  • Does an investigation conducted by an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector in a murder case, without authorization, vitiate the investigation?
  • Can the testimony of a witness who was not present at the scene and relies on information from others be admitted as evidence?
  • Is the 'last seen' circumstance alone sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Khayal Bacha son of Habib vs Ijaz Hussain son of Muhammad Hussain and another2024 F.S.C 18 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Khawaja Nisar Ahmed son of Khawaja Gulzar vs The State, through Police2024 SC AJK 20 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Khawaja Khalid Mehmood s/o Khawaja Ghulam Muhammad r/o Madina2024 SC AJK 64 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Khawaja Javed Mehmood vs Punjab Small Industries Corporation2024 LHC 1349 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khawaja Adnan Zafar vs Hina Bashir and others2024 SCP 142, 2024 SCMR 1295 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-27
  guardianshipcustody of minorsinterim ordersleave to appealvisitation rightswrit jurisdictionwelfare of minors
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves multiple Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal (CPLAs) filed by a father challenging various interim orders passed by the Lahore High Court regarding the custody and visitation of his minor children. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to interfere with interlocutory orders passed by the High Court in ongoing guardianship proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the petitions were not maintainable. The Court reaffirmed the established principle that it ordinarily does not interfere with interim orders passed by the High Court unless there is a flagrant violation of law, wrongful exercise of jurisdiction, or manifest grave injustice. Finding that the impugned orders were legally sound and did not prejudice the pending guardianship application, the Court dismissed the petitions. It further directed the Guardian Judge to expedite the final adjudication of the pending guardianship petition to resolve the custody dispute in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with interim orders passed by the High Court?
  • Is an interim order regarding the custody of minors subject to appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the filing of multiple interim applications in guardianship proceedings justify Supreme Court intervention?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs The State2024 YLR 1113 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-12-07
  murder appealchance witnesseshostile witnessbenefit of the doubtmotiveweapon recoveryrelated witnessescriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related eye-witnesses, the status of an injured eye-witness turning hostile, the evidentiary value of a belated weapon recovery from an open access place without forensic matching, and the failure of proof regarding the alleged motive. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the conduct of the alleged eye-witnesses rendered them chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful, the independent injured eye-witness did not implicate the appellant, the weapon recovery was tainted and unverified by a firearms expert, and the set-up motive remained unproven. The court laid down that where related witnesses act contrary to natural human conduct during an attack and independent evidence contradicts their presence, their testimony cannot form the basis of a conviction, and the failure to prove a set-up motive dents the prosecution case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses can be relied upon when their conduct at the time of the occurrence runs counter to natural human behavior?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution case when a set-up motive is asserted but completely fails of proof?
  • Can a delayed weapon recovery from an open access place without forensic ballistic matching sustain a conviction?
  • How should the testimony of an independent injured eye-witness who does not support the prosecution version be treated?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1108 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-23
  back benefitsreinstatementFundamental Rulessalary arrearsno work no paygovernment servantwrongful arrest
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by a government servant seeking the release of salary arrears and annual increments withheld during his period of incarceration in a criminal case. The petitioner was subsequently acquitted and reinstated into service, but the department treated his period of absence as leave without pay or half-pay, citing the "no work, no pay" principle. The core legal question was whether a government servant, upon acquittal and reinstatement, is entitled to full salary for the period of absence caused by detention. The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the department's decision to withhold full pay. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to full salary for the entire period of his absence. The key principle laid down is that the "no work, no pay" principle is inapplicable when an employee is forcibly prevented from performing duties due to incarceration and is subsequently reinstated. Under Fundamental Rule 54(a), the period of absence from duty in such cases must be treated as a period spent on duty.

  Questions settled

  • Is the principle of 'no work, no pay' applicable to a government servant who was prevented from performing duties due to incarceration and subsequently acquitted?
  • Does Fundamental Rule 54(a) require the period of absence due to incarceration to be treated as a period spent on duty upon reinstatement?
  • Can a department withhold full salary for the period of an employee's detention if the employee is subsequently acquitted and reinstated?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Addl. District Judge etc2022 LHC 2698, 2024 MLD 1749 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-22Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad Ansari vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 584 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-21Read full judgment →
• Khaliq Dad and another vs The State2024 PCRLJ 678 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-09-16
  narcotic possessionchain of custodyconscious possessionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealsafe transmissionchemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of two appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possessing narcotics concealed in a vehicle. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the integrity of the chain of custody and the conscious possession of the passenger. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody from the point of recovery to the chemical examiner, rendering the forensic report unreliable. Additionally, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the passenger had knowledge of the narcotics concealed in the vehicle's dashboard. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted both appellants, extending them the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that any gap in the safe custody or transmission of narcotic samples invalidates the chemical examiner's report, and that mere presence in a vehicle is insufficient to establish conscious possession without evidence of knowledge.

  Questions settled

  • Does a break in the chain of custody of narcotic samples render the chemical examiner's report unreliable?
  • Is a passenger in a vehicle containing concealed narcotics liable for conviction without proof of conscious possession?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be sustained when prosecution witnesses provide contradictory testimony regarding the recovery process?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmed through Attorney vs District Registrar for Registration and 42024 CLC 1135 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-06Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmad & 2 others vs StatePLJ 2024 Cr.C. 252, 2025 YLR 116 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-14
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidencechance witnessesmurder convictionacquittalpost-mortem delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions and death sentences awarded by the trial court for offences under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt given the evidentiary inconsistencies. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution’s case was fundamentally flawed. The court identified significant delays in the post-mortem examination, casting doubt on the presence of eyewitnesses. Furthermore, the court noted that the eyewitnesses were related and chance witnesses who failed to justify their presence at the scene, and it was highly improbable that assailants would spare them if they were truly present. Additionally, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account, and the recovered weapons did not match the crime scene evidence. The court reiterated the principle that motive is a double-edged weapon and that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and declined to confirm the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in conducting a post-mortem examination create reasonable doubt regarding the presence of eyewitnesses at the crime scene?
  • Can the testimony of related and chance witnesses be relied upon without independent corroboration when their presence at the scene is not justified?
  • Does a conflict between medical evidence and the ocular account entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Is the existence of a motive sufficient to sustain a conviction when other evidence is unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalida Bibi and another vs The State etc.2024 LHC 150, 2024 PCRLJ 1972, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1185 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-15
  post-arrest bailprostitutiontrafficking in personsfornicationpolice powerssearch without warrantcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought post-arrest bail for individuals charged under Sections 371A and 371B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a police raid on a private residence where the petitioners were found in an 'objectionable condition.' The core legal question was whether these sections, which criminalize the sale, purchase, or procurement of persons for prostitution, apply to consensual sexual acts between individuals in private premises. The Court held that Sections 371A and 371B PPC are inapplicable to consensual sexual intercourse, as they specifically target trafficking and brokerage for immoral purposes. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the offence of fornication under Section 496B PPC requires a formal complaint under Section 203C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that police authority to enter private premises without a warrant is strictly circumscribed by the Police Order 2002 and the Punjab Suppression of Prostitution Ordinance 1961. Finding no evidence connecting the petitioners to the charged offences, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that liberty cannot be curtailed on bald allegations without a prima facie case.

  Questions settled

  • Do Sections 371A and 371B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply to consensual sexual intercourse between individuals in a private place?
  • Can the police enter private premises without a warrant to investigate suspected immoral activities?
  • Is a complaint under Section 203C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory for initiating prosecution for the offence of fornication?
  • Does the Punjab Suppression of Prostitution Ordinance 1961 criminalize consensual sexual intercourse between two adults?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Zafar vs The State2024 MLD 1489 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-03
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtsole eye-witnessidentification paradeforensic evidencepolice confessionmurder convictionchain of custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for murder, attempted murder, and robbery. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on a sole eye-witness and forensic evidence derived from a separate case. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof. The court found the sole eye-witness identification unreliable due to the absence of a prior description, the lack of an identification parade, and poor visibility at the time of the incident. Furthermore, the court ruled that the appellant's alleged confession to the police was inadmissible, and the forensic evidence was compromised by procedural irregularities and delays in chain of custody. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that identification of an unknown accused by a sole witness without proper procedural safeguards is insufficient for conviction, and that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is an in-court identification of an unknown accused by a sole eye-witness sufficient for conviction without a prior identification parade?
  • Can a confession made to police officers be admitted as evidence against an accused?
  • Does a delay in sending forensic evidence to a laboratory create a reasonable doubt regarding the integrity of the evidence?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to provide a description of the accused in the FIR or initial statements?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid vs The State thr. PG Sindh2024 SCP 201, 2024 SCMR 1474, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-21
  murderdeath sentencecommutation of sentencemitigating circumstancesexpectancy of lifeeyewitness testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a criminal petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed his jail appeal and maintained his death sentence under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Abdul Basit. The Supreme Court examined the record, noting that eyewitness testimonies were consistent, corroborated by medical evidence, recovery of crime empties, and weapon matching. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and whether mitigating circumstances existed for commutation of the death sentence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the charge through trustworthy eyewitnesses and circumstantial evidence, maintaining the conviction. However, considering mitigating circumstances—specifically the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive and the inordinate delay of 16 years spent by the petitioner in the death cell awaiting judicial remedies—the Court partly allowed the appeal, converting the death sentence into imprisonment for life while enhancing the compensation amount and extending the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that the non-proof of motive and the prolonged incarceration/delay in disposal not attributable to the accused serve as mitigating circumstances justifying the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Can the non-proving of the motive alleged by the prosecution be considered as a mitigating circumstance for reducing the quantum of sentence?
  • Whether prolonged incarceration in the death cell awaiting judicial remedies can form the basis for applying the principle of expectancy of life to commute a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Does the relationship of an eyewitness with the deceased render their testimony discardable in the absence of an ulterior motive for false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs StatePLJ 2024 Cr.C. 489, 2024 PCRLJ 1212 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-08
  qatl-i-amdqisasta'zirplea of guilttazkiyah-al-shuhoodinjured witnessmurder referenceweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge Fateh Jang Attock, whereby the appellant Khalid Mehmood was convicted under Section 302(a), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the qatl-i-amd of three women and sentenced to death as Qisas on three counts, along with convictions under Sections 324 and 337-F(iv) of the same Code. The prosecution case was based on ocular accounts provided by natural and injured eye-witnesses, supported by medical evidence, a proved motive, and a forensic match of crime empties with a weapon recovered upon the appellant's disclosure. The Lahore High Court examined the validity of awarding death as Qisas based on an unrepresented guilty plea at the time of indictment and the absence of the procedural requirement of Tazkiyah-Al-Shuhood. The Court held that the conviction under Section 302(a) as Qisas was legally unsustainable, set it aside, and converted it to a conviction under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing the appellant to death as Ta'zir on three counts. The convictions and sentences under Sections 324 and 337-F(iv) were maintained, the criminal appeal was dismissed, and the murder reference was answered in the affirmative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction of death as Qisas under Section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on the basis of a plea of guilt made without legal representation at the time of indictment?
  • Whether the procedural requirement of Tazkiyah-Al-Shuhood is a mandatory precondition for awarding the punishment of death as Qisas under Section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the failure to put an incriminating judicial confession to an accused during examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate its use as proof of qatl-i-amd liable to Qisas?
  • When proof of Qisas in the forms specified in Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is lacking, can an appellate court convert a conviction from Section 302(a) to Section 302(b) of the Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood and others vs Sardaran Bibi and others2024 MLD 90 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-08Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood Ali vs Election Commission of Pak & others2024 SHC 618 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-30Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs The State and another2024 LHC 2029 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-23
  terrorism financinganti-terrorismbenefit of the doubtmobile phone data extractionright to privacyself-incriminationcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellant handed down by the Anti-Terrorism Court under various sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for terrorism financing and related offenses. The core legal questions centered on whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the admissibility of unexhibited and unverified evidence, and the legality of extracting digital data from a mobile phone without consent or court warrant in violation of constitutional privacy protections and the prohibition against self-incrimination. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the presence of the witnesses at the spot, substantiate the recoveries, or prove the chain of custody for the forensic evidence. The court concluded that data extraction from a personal device without a warrant violates Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, setting aside the conviction and ordering the immediate release of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the extraction of data from a personal mobile phone without consent or prior judicial warrant violates the constitutional prohibition against self-incrimination under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to exhibit document counterfoils and prove the chain of custody of case property render forensic reports unreliable?
  • Is it necessary for multiple circumstances to exist to extend the benefit of the doubt to an accused person?
  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of police officials regarding an alleged spot recovery at a busy public place without associating independent witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Khan vs Zarai Tarqiati Bank through its Zonal Chief, Zonal Office2024 PHC 188, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 143 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• Khalid and 2 others vs The State2024 YLR 1497 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-02
  anti-terrorism actcommon intentionbenefit of doubtforensic evidencepolice encounterillegal arms recoverycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the convictions of three appellants for their alleged involvement in a police encounter resulting in the death of a police official and the recovery of illicit arms. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution established the appellants' individual roles in the offence, whether the evidence supported convictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and whether the requirements for common intention were met. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of two appellants, Sher Zaman and Khalid, who were empty-handed and against whom only general allegations existed, necessitating their acquittal. Regarding the third appellant, Haji Naik Muhammad, the Court upheld convictions under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, due to forensic evidence linking his recovered weapon to the scene, but set aside his conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and for murder. The key principle laid down is that mere presence at a crime scene is insufficient to establish common intention without proof of an overt act, and that terrorism charges require specific intent to intimidate the public or government, rather than mere private criminal acts.

  Questions settled

  • Is mere presence at the scene of a crime sufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does an act of violence against police officers automatically qualify as terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 if the motive is not to intimidate the public or government?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution fails to specify which of multiple assailants caused the fatal injury?
  • Are minor contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses sufficient grounds to reject the entire prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid alias Muhammad Khalid and others vs Collector of Customs2024 SCP 285, PTCL 2024 CL. 658, 2024 SCMR 1806, PTCL 2025 CL. 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-09
  Customs Appellate Tribunalexecution of ordersimplied powersancillary powerscustoms referencewrit jurisdictionstatutory construction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the power of the Customs Appellate Tribunal to execute its own appellate orders passed under the Customs Act 1969. The core legal question was whether the Customs Appellate Tribunal possesses the implied power to execute orders passed in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, or whether parties must invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for execution. The Supreme Court held that the Customs Appellate Tribunal possesses the implied, incidental, and ancillary power to execute and enforce orders passed under Sections 194-A and 194-B of the Customs Act 1969, as the power to make an order necessarily carries the implicit power to implement it. The Court laid down the principle of statutory construction that where a statute confers substantive jurisdiction upon a court or tribunal, it also grants by necessary implication all incidental and ancillary powers required to make that jurisdiction effective, including the power to execute its own orders. Consequently, the High Court's writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for the execution of such orders since an adequate remedy exists before the Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Customs Appellate Tribunal has the power to execute orders passed in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under the Customs Act 1969?
  • Can the writ jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked for the execution of orders passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal when an adequate remedy is available?
  • Does a statutory tribunal possess implied and ancillary powers to execute its own adjudicatory orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Ahmed Tanwri, through his legal heirs vs District & Sessions Judge, Shikarpur and Seven (7) others2024 SHC 104 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khalid Ahmed Bozdar vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 378 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
• Khaleelullah & others vs Muhaim Khan & others2024 SCP 31, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 600 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-19
  inheritancelimitation periodthird-party rightsco-sharersfraudactual denial of rightconstructive possessionconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged three concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding a long-standing inheritance dispute over the legacy of Qaim Khan. The petitioners, claiming as great-grandchildren of Qaim Khan through a female line, instituted a suit for inheritance in 2007, decades after the death of their mother and maternal grandfather, both of whom never claimed their shares during their lifetimes. The respondents resisted the claim on the grounds of limitation, estoppel, and the creation of third-party rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while inheritance is normally governed by constructive possession and lacks a strict limitation period in simple co-sharer disputes, claims involving long-standing third-party interests are subject to strict limitation periods and require the claimant to prove lack of knowledge or fraud under Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court ruled that actual denial of rights occurs when property is transferred to third parties (such as via sale or gift), which starts the period of limitation, and failure by the predecessor to challenge such acts within time binds subsequent legal heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Does the law of limitation bar an inheritance claim when third-party interests have already been created in the disputed property?
  • What constitutes an actual denial of proprietary rights as opposed to a threatened denial in co-sharer property disputes?
  • Does a fresh period of limitation become available to legal heirs if their predecessor failed to challenge an actual denial of rights within the prescribed time?
  • Is a court or appellate tribunal obligated to consider the question of limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908 even if it was not specifically raised in the written statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Khaista Mir. vs XEN PESCO & two others2024 PHC 384 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-12-02Read full judgment →
• Khair Nawaz Khan vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1372 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-18Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs The State & others2024 SHC 178, 2025 PLD Sindh 12 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-26
  cognizancepolice reportinvestigating officerjurisdiction of magistratedeletion of sectioncriminal procedurepositive report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by a Magistrate whereby, upon submission of a positive police report under Section 324 PPC, the Magistrate disagreed with the Investigating Officer, deleted Section 324 PPC summarily, and retained the case for trial. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate possesses the jurisdiction to summarily disagree with a positive police report by deleting an offence or altering the charge upon taking cognizance. The Sindh High Court held that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to disagree with a positive report of the Investigating Officer recommending trial under specific sections or to delete a penal provision summarily by discarding the evidentiary value of investigative material. The court established the principle that evaluation of evidence and determination of whether a particular penal section is made out falls within the domain of the trial court during the course of trial, and a Magistrate's power to disagree with a police report is restricted to negative reports or cases where the case is disposed of.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate have the jurisdiction to disagree with a positive police report and summarily delete an offence during cognizance?
  • Can a Magistrate discard the evidentiary value of material collected during investigation without holding a trial?
  • What is the extent of a Magistrate's power to disagree with the opinion of an Investigating Officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Abid Hussain and 5 others2024 PLJ AJ&K 161 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-05-03Read full judgment →
• Khadim Ahmad vs Muhammad Zakir Shah2024 PHC 42 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-12Read full judgment →
• Kh. Zahid Mir vs Judge Family Court, Kotli and another2024 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 13 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-01-23Read full judgment →
• Kashif vs Imran and another2024 SCP 23, 2024 SCMR 589 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-17
  post-arrest baildacoityprohibited bore weaponsweapon licensefundamental rightsequality before lawright to lifepublic importance
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail matter arising from an FIR registered for dacoity involving unknown persons. The petitioner sought post-arrest bail, contending misidentification and false implication stemming from alleged illegal police detention. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner was not named in the initial report, no identification parade was conducted, and no stolen property was recovered from his possession, thus making his case one of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted bail to the petitioner. Furthermore, upon discovering a questionable weapon license for a prohibited bore sub-machine gun issued by a police officer, the Court raised vital constitutional and legal questions regarding the issuance of prohibited bore licenses, private possession of automatic weapons, and their consistency with fundamental rights to life and equality under Articles 9 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court directed the office to register a separate constitution petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution for public importance.

  Questions settled

  • Under what legal authority had the Deputy Inspector General of Police issued a document purporting to be a license to carry a sub-machine gun, which is a prohibited bore weapon?
  • Whether exempting certain categories of persons or granting them the right to obtain licenses for sub-machine guns and other prohibited bore weapons accords with Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Whether enabling the easy availability of sub-machine guns and other prohibited bore weapons accords with Article 9, the Fundamental Right to life guaranteed by the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Law Book House vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 LHC 254, 2025 PLD Lahore 311 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-26Read full judgment →
• Kashif Hussain vs The State2024 MLD 1777 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-11-22Read full judgment →
• Kashif Anwar vs The Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad2024 PTD 1441 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2022-04-12Read full judgment →
• Kasb Securities Limited vs Director/Head of Department, MSRD- SECP2024 CLD 1167 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2024-01-31Read full judgment →
• Karim Bux @ Javed & others vs The State2024 SHC 1220 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-04
  cognizance of offencepolice reportinvestigating officermagisterial powersAnti-Terrorism Actcriminal procedurecharge sheet
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants challenged a Magistrate's order that returned a police charge sheet, directing the investigating officer to refile it under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, instead of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate possesses the authority to unilaterally direct the addition of specific statutory sections to a police report and compel the transfer of a case to another court at the pre-trial stage. The Court held that while a Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of an offense and may agree or disagree with the police report, they cannot act as an investigating officer by directing the inclusion of specific charges or forcing a transfer to an Anti-Terrorism Court before the trial stage. The ratio established is that the Magistrate's role at the cognizance stage is to determine if a prima facie case exists based on the material provided, not to dictate the investigation's outcome or the specific charges. The Court set aside the Magistrate's order and directed the trial court to proceed with framing charges.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Magistrate empowered to direct an investigating officer to add specific sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act to a charge sheet?
  • Does a Magistrate have the authority to compel the transfer of a case to an Anti-Terrorism Court at the pre-trial stage?
  • Is the opinion of an investigating officer regarding the applicable sections of law binding upon the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Kareem Bux vs The State2024 SHC 1382 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-10
  narcotics possessiontransportation of narcoticscriminal appealburden of proofofficial witnesseschemical examiner reportSection 103 CrPCControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and fourteen-year sentence of the appellant, Kareem Bux, for transporting 7.4 kilograms of Charas, as adjudicated by the Special Judge, Control of Narcotic Substances, Hyderabad. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the conviction based on the testimony of official witnesses, the applicability of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding independent witnesses, the legality of the complainant acting as the investigating officer, and the sufficiency of the chemical examiner's report. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that the driver of a vehicle is legally responsible for narcotics found within their control. Furthermore, it held that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded in narcotics cases by Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, and that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony is not inherently suspect. The judgment reinforces that once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997.

  Questions settled

  • Is the driver of a vehicle legally responsible for narcotics discovered within that vehicle?
  • Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to searches and arrests under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can a complainant also act as the investigating officer in a criminal case?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case?
  Read full judgment →
• Karam Elahi vs Ahmad Din, etc2023 LHC 4189, 2024 MLD 1886 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-02Read full judgment →
• Karachi Properties Investment Company (Pvt) Ltd vs Habib Carpets (Pvt)2024 SCP 198, 2024 SCMR 1354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-03
  ejectment applicationrent definitionmaintenance chargestenancy agreementconsensus ad idemwrit jurisdictiondefault in rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed an ejectment application filed by a landlord against a tenant. The core legal question was whether 'maintenance charges,' which were not explicitly mentioned in the lease agreement, fall within the definition of 'rent' under Section 2(i) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, such that their non-payment constitutes a ground for eviction. The Supreme Court held that the residuary clause in the definition of 'rent'—'and such other charges which are payable by the tenant but are unpaid'—cannot be invoked to impose liability for maintenance charges absent an express or implied agreement between the parties. The Court emphasized the principle of consensus ad idem, noting that tenancy terms must be clearly defined in writing to be enforceable. Because the lease agreement lacked any provision for maintenance charges, the landlord could not unilaterally claim default. The Court affirmed the High Court's exercise of writ jurisdiction, ruling that concurrent findings of lower forums can be set aside when they suffer from misreading of evidence or patent errors of law.

  Questions settled

  • Do 'maintenance charges' not specified in a lease agreement fall within the definition of 'rent' under Section 2(i) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a landlord seek eviction for non-payment of maintenance charges if the tenancy agreement contains no express clause requiring the tenant to pay such charges?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by rent tribunals in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi International Container Terminal Limited vs Brig [Retd] Arif2024 SHC 1386 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-16Read full judgment →
• Karachi Electric Supply Corporation vs Batool Fatima2024 SHC 48, 2024 PLD Sindh 279 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-30Read full judgment →
• Kanwal Shahzadi, wife of Raja Khalid Inayat vs Muhammad Naeem s/o2024 SC AJK 34 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  service rulesgender discriminationconstitutional equalityvested rightestoppel by conductpublic appointmentwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a High Court judgment setting aside the appointment of the appellant, Kanwal Shahzadi, as an Attendant B-1 because the job advertisement specified "Male-Attendant", whereas the governing service rules contained no gender restriction. The core legal question was whether an employment advertisement can impose a gender restriction not found in the statutory service rules, and whether a candidate can be penalized for an authority's erroneous advertisement after participating in the selection process without objection. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the High Court erred in invalidating the appointment based on the defective advertisement, ruling that service rules prevail over advertisements and that candidates cannot be penalized for administrative errors. The Court established key principles that executive authorities must strictly adhere to governing service rules, that advertisements cannot contradict rules, that candidates participating in a selection process are estopped from challenging it upon failure, and that gender-based restrictions not sanctioned by rules violate constitutional guarantees against discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employment advertisement can introduce a gender restriction that is absent from the governing service rules?
  • Can a candidate who participated in a selection process without objection challenge the appointment of a successful candidate after failing to qualify?
  • Whether a civil servant can be penalized for an error or mistake committed by the appointing authority in the advertisement process?
  • Do constitutional safeguards against gender discrimination in public services override inconsistent administrative advertisements?
  Read full judgment →
• Kaniz Haider etc vs Khaliq Dad etc2024 LHC 5013, 2025 MLD 662 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-06Read full judgment →
• Kaniz Fatima and others vs Syed Qaseemul Hassan and others2024 YLR 537 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-04Read full judgment →
• Kaneez Fatima, etc. vs Senior Civil Judge etc.2024 LHC 2358, 2024 PLD Lahore 715, 2025 PLJ Lahore 159 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-15Read full judgment →
• Kamran vs The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2024 SCMR 1419 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-19
  post-arrest bailjuvenile offenderheinous offenceprohibitory clauseforensic video analysismedical evidencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail after the Peshawar High Court dismissed his petition in connection with FIR No. 1894 registered under Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was subsequently converted or related to a murder charge involving dagger blows. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, alleged to have committed a heinous offence involving capital punishment and falling within the prohibitory clause, was entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly given his status as a juvenile. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, reasoning that the supplementary statement, statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, unchallenged forensic video analysis of CCTV footage, medical evidence, and weapon recovery robustly connected the petitioner to the crime. The court laid down the principle that the mere status of being a juvenile does not automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail when charged with a heinous offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the status of being a juvenile automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail for a heinous offence?
  • Whether positive forensic video analysis and recovery of the crime weapon connect the accused to the crime to bar bail under the prohibitory clause?
  • Is an accused charged with an offence carrying capital punishment entitled to bail when supported by medical and circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Mushtaq vs The State & 02 others2024 LHC 5222, 2025 MLD 367, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 149 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-08
  juvenile justicedetermination of agejuvenile offenderossification testmedical examination reportbirth certificateburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhera, rejecting his documentary evidence of juvenility and relying instead on a medical ossification report under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The core legal question was whether a trial court is bound to accept birth or educational certificates produced by an accused claiming to be a juvenile without inquiry, or whether it can hold an inquiry and rely on a medical report when documents are ambiguous or unverified. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the inquiry for age determination is a judicial proceeding requiring verification of documents under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court ruled that 'absence of documents' in Section 8 of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 includes the absence of authentic, correct, and true documents admissible in evidence. When documents are found unverified, fabricated, or based on volunteered entries, the trial court has the authority to conduct an inquiry and resort to a medical examination report to determine age.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court is bound to accept educational and birth certificates claiming juvenility without testing their authenticity?
  • What constitutes the 'absence of documents' under Section 8 of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 for the purpose of ordering a medical examination?
  • Whether an inquiry for age determination under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 is a judicial proceeding governed by the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Khan vs Government of Punjab and others2024 MLD 298 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-25Read full judgment →
• Kamran Ali alias Hannan vs The State through Prosecutor General Punjab2024 YLR 1063 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-06
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailstatutory delaymajor portion of sentencecriminal appealpunishment in advance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by Kamran Ali alias Hanan seeking the suspension of his sentence and grant of bail pending his main appeal against conviction under Sections 324 and 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's sentence should be suspended and bail granted on the ground of having undergone a major portion of his awarded sentence when the main appeal was unlikely to be heard early. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that since the petitioner had already undergone over eight years out of his ten-year sentence and contributed no delay to the hearing of his pending appeal, keeping him incarcerated would amount to serving punishment in advance. The key principle laid down is that where an accused has served a substantial portion of their substantive sentence and the timely disposal of the main appeal is remote through no fault of the appellant, the sentence ought to be suspended to prevent premature execution of punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-conviction bail can be granted when the accused has undergone a major portion of the awarded sentence?
  • Does the unlikelihood of an early hearing of a pending criminal appeal justify suspending the sentence of the convict?
  • Can prolonged incarceration pending appeal be construed as serving punishment in advance?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamal-Ud-Din vs The State2024 MLD 1289 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-18
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaystatutory right to baildelay in conclusion of trialprohibitory clausehardened criminalunder-trial prisoner
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous application filed by the applicant Kamal-Ud-Din seeking post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of his trial in a case registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question before the Balochistan High Court was whether the accused had earned an indefeasible statutory right to be released on bail under the third proviso of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, due to the prolonged detention and non-conclusion of the trial within the statutory period, and whether such right could be defeated by delays occurring after the expiry of the statutory period or by mere procedural adjournments. The Court held that the applicant had indeed completed the mandatory statutory period of detention without the trial concluding, that the delay was not attributable to him within the meaning of the law, and that he did not fall within the prohibitory exceptions of being a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal. The High Court consequently allowed the application, laying down the principle that the statutory right to bail accrues upon the expiry of the prescribed period and that subsequent delays or general adjournments cannot divest the accused of this right once accrued.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person acquires a statutory right to be released on bail if the trial is not concluded within the period specified under the third proviso of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can delays occurring after the expiry of the mandatory statutory detention period be used to defeat an accused person's accrued right to statutory bail?
  • What constitutes an act or omission on the part of the accused sufficient to disentitle them from claiming the benefit of the third proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does a court retain discretion to refuse bail under the third proviso of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, once the statutory period has elapsed and the exceptions of the fourth proviso are absent?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamal Kumar vs The State and Another2024 PCRLJ 30 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-08-02
  protective baildiscretionary reliefsecond protective bailaccess to justicebail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal matter wherein the petitioner approached the Islamabad High Court seeking a second protective bail in respect of an FIR registered under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Quetta. The core legal question before the court concerned the maintainability and grant of a second protective bail when the petitioner had previously failed to avail the earlier protective bail within the stipulated time without a plausible justification. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that protective bail is an extraordinary, discretionary relief aimed at facilitating access to justice, and where an applicant flouts previous court orders and delays approaching the competent forum without sufficient cause, the court is under no compulsion to extend further protection. The court laid down the principle that the grant of protective bail is strictly tied to the petitioner's bona fide conduct and satisfaction of the judicial conscience.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second protective bail can be granted when the petitioner failed to avail an earlier protective bail without a plausible justification?
  • Is the grant of protective bail a matter of right or a discretionary relief based on the petitioner's conduct?
  • What are the legal implications of flouting a previous protective bail order passed by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamal Jalal and others vs The State etc2024 PHC 324, 2025 PCRLJ 298 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-02
  murderbenefit of doubtchance witnessocular testimonymedical evidencecrime emptiescriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants recorded by the trial court under sections 302, 324, 338-C, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the appellants opened indiscriminate fire, resulting in the death of a woman and her unborn child and endangering the life of the complainant. Upon reappraising the evidence, the Peshawar High Court found the testimony of the eyewitnesses to be unreliable, categorizing them as chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was highly doubtful and unverified by independent evidence. The court noted significant discrepancies between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the trajectory of the firearm injury, as well as unexplained delays in dispatching crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Reaffirming that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt and that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, the court set aside the convictions, allowed the appeal, and acquitted the appellants of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person in a criminal trial is bound by admissions made by their defense counsel during cross-examination?
  • Does the unexplained delay in sending crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory compromise the evidentiary value of a positive FSL report?
  • What constitutes a chance witness and under what circumstances can their testimony be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • How does a contradiction between the medical evidence regarding the trajectory of a firearm injury and the ocular account affect the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• K.M. Awan vs Government of Sindh through Secretary Home, Karachi and others2024 CLC 394 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-15Read full judgment →
• Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Judge Supreme Court of Pakistan2024 SCP 16, 2024 SCMR 599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-09
  Supreme Judicial Councilproper partynon-joinder of partiesconstitutional petitionnatural justicemaliceshow cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the proceedings and show cause notices issued by the Supreme Judicial Council against a judge. The core legal question addressed is whether the complainants or informers who filed complaints before the Supreme Judicial Council are necessary or proper parties to be impleaded as respondents in these constitutional petitions. The Court held that while a suit cannot be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, the informers and complainants are proper parties whose impleadment is necessary in the interest of justice, particularly where the pleadings heavily rely on allegations that their complaints are mala fide, frivolous, and politically motivated, to ensure they are not condemned unheard. The key principle laid down is that persons whose complaints form the foundational basis of impugned proceedings and whose integrity or actions are directly challenged as mala fide in constitutional petitions must be impleaded as proper parties to satisfy the principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the complainants and informers who initiated proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council are necessary or proper parties in constitutional petitions challenging those proceedings?
  • Can proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council be stayed through an injunctive order when the petitioner refuses to implead the original complainants as respondents?
  • Whether non-joinder of necessary parties warrants the outright dismissal of a suit or petition?
  • Does the disclosure of income tax returns to complainants violate fundamental rights to liberty and privacy under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan and another vs The State2024 MLD 853 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-02
  safe custody of narcoticschain of custodychemical examiner reportsection 342 Cr.P.C.benefit of the doubtnarcotics controlmalkhana register
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of narcotics from a vehicle. The core legal questions involved the failure of the prosecution to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered narcotics to the chemical laboratory, and the legal consequence of failing to put the chemical examiner's report to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Sindh High Court held that an unbroken chain of safe custody is vital in narcotics cases, and any break or failure to examine the malkhana incharge renders the chemical report valueless. Furthermore, any piece of evidence, including a chemical report, not put to the accused under Section 342, Cr.P.C., cannot be used for conviction. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt, laying down that the prosecution must strictly establish safe custody of narcotics and put all inculpatory material to the accused during their Section 342 statements.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove safe custody and safe transmission of narcotics vitiate the chemical report?
  • Can a chemical report be used to convict an accused if it was not put to them during their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to examine the malkhana incharge in a narcotics case regarding the chain of custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Jurial Shah alias Jani Shah vs The State2024 SHC 682 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-24
  pre-arrest bailCNS Actco-accused statementprohibitory clauserule of parityfurther inquirynarcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under the CNS (Amendment) Act, 2022, after his anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Court of Sessions. The core legal question revolved around whether pre-arrest bail could be confirmed when the applicant was not arrested at the spot, no recovery was made from him, and his implication was solely based on the statement of a co-accused, coupled with the fact that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause. The Sindh High Court allowed the application and confirmed the pre-arrest bail, holding that a statement or confession made by a co-accused before the police cannot form the basis for conviction or guilt, that previous criminal records alone do not justify withholding bail when no conviction is recorded, and that offenses falling outside the prohibitory clause make bail the rule and refusal the exception. The court laid down the principle that an accused implicated solely through a co-accused's statement without any direct recovery stands on a better or equal footing for the grant of bail on the ground of parity.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement or confession made by a co-accused before the police be made the basis for maintaining a conviction or denying bail to an accused?
  • Whether an accused whose case falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is entitled to bail as a general rule?
  • Does the pendency of other criminal cases, without any recorded conviction, justify the refusal of bail in a distinct matter?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail on the ground of parity when a co-accused from whose possession contraband was actually recovered has already been released on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Junaid Ahma vs The State2024 PHC 390, 2025 PLD Peshawar 116 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-12-03Read full judgment →
• Juman, Son Of Aari, Adult, Muslim, By Caste Sheedi, Resident Of Kario2024 F.S.C 22, 2025 MLD 314 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-11-27
  prohibition enforcementHadd orderchain of custodychemical examiner reportrecovery proceedingsbenefit of doubtcriminal revisionmandatory association of witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the petitioner under Article 4 of The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the alleged possession of 54 pints of wine. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of evidence regarding the chain of custody of the recovered property, the validity of the chemical examiner's report based on a single sample, and the failure of the prosecution to associate independent witnesses as required by law. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and transmission of the sample, rendering the chemical report unreliable. Furthermore, the Court found material contradictions in the testimonies of police witnesses regarding the incident's circumstances and the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquitted the petitioner, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Is the chemical examiner's report reliable when the prosecution fails to prove the safe custody and transmission of the sample?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to associate independent witnesses in recovery proceedings as required by Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the lack of enmity between the police and the accused automatically validate the prosecution's case despite material contradictions in evidence?
  • Is a single pint of wine a representative sample for 54 recovered bottles to prove the nature of the substance in all of them?
  Read full judgment →
• Jubilee Life Insurance Company Ltd vs Federal Investigation Agency @Ia)2024 PHC 318, 2025 PLD Peshawar 71, 2025 CLD 549 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-22Read full judgment →
• Jehanzeb & 02 others, Shaukat Ali son of Muhammad Khan vs The State &2024 PHC 86 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Jehanzeb & 02 others vs The State & another2024 PHC 86 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-23
  murdercommon intentioninjured witnessrelated witnessvicarious liabilityappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected criminal revision arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder, murderous attempts, and hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the eyewitness testimony of related and injured witnesses, the applicability of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and the effect of minor contradictions and delayed dispatch of forensic evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the eyewitnesses, including an injured complainant, gave natural and consistent accounts, and their relationship with the deceased did not render them interested witnesses in the absence of deep-rooted enmity. The court further held that minor discrepancies do not discredit otherwise reliable testimony and that common intention was established by the concerted conduct of the accused. Consequently, the court upheld the convictions and sentences, dismissing both the appeal and the revision for sentence enhancement. The key principles laid down include that the testimony of an injured witness is inherently reliable, minor contradictions over time are natural and can be ignored, and related witnesses are not disqualified unless shown to be partisan.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a related and injured eyewitness can be relied upon without independent corroboration in a murder case?
  • Does the mere relationship of prosecution witnesses with the deceased render them 'interested witnesses' under criminal law?
  • Can common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code be inferred from the concerted conduct and actions of the accused at the crime scene?
  • What is the legal effect of minor contradictions and delayed transmission of crime empties to the forensic science laboratory on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →