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.

• Imdad Hussain Khoso vs Province of Sindh and others2024 PLJ Karachi 134 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-11Read full judgment →
• Imam Bux vs M/s Sea Boards Services & others2024 SHC 1320 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-05
  review jurisdictionresignationerror apparent on the face of the recordfull and final settlementconstitutional petitionlabor lawback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a review application filed by a former employee challenging the dismissal of his constitutional petition regarding his resignation and subsequent claims for service benefits. The petitioner alleged that his resignation was involuntary, based on a verbal promise of a golden handshake and reinstatement, and that the court failed to consider relevant Supreme Court precedents. The core legal question was whether the dismissal order contained an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court held that the review application was misconceived, emphasizing that the scope of review is strictly limited to errors immediately evident without detailed reasoning and cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal. The Court further noted that the petitioner had already received full and final settlement of his dues, and the matter had been concurrently decided against him by competent labor forums. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review application, reaffirming that resignation is a voluntary act and that review jurisdiction does not permit re-adjudication of factual findings or legal arguments that should have been raised in an appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is the scope of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 broad enough to permit the re-examination of factual findings or legal arguments as if it were an appeal?
  • Does the acceptance of full and final settlement dues by an employee estop them from later challenging the validity of their resignation?
  • What constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record sufficient to justify the exercise of review jurisdiction?
  • Do back benefits automatically follow an order of reinstatement in labor disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Imam Bakhsh and 6 others vs Muhammad Siddique2024 PLD Balochistan 165 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-15Read full judgment →
• Imam Ali Solangi and another vs The State2024 SHC 364 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-30Read full judgment →
• Ikramuddin Rajput vs The Inspector General of Police, Sindh and others2024 SCP 94, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 493, 2024 SCMR 510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-19
  misconductinvestigating officerservice appealdisciplinary proceedingsstandard of proofdefective investigationpolice disciplinerape investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the Sindh Service Tribunal's dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal against his removal from service as a Sub-Inspector. The petitioner, acting as an Investigation Officer, had registered a rape case under Section 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, despite overwhelming medical and ocular evidence supporting a charge of rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary dismissal for misconduct due to this flawed investigation was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, affirming that the petitioner’s actions constituted gross misconduct and inefficiency. The Court held that an Investigating Officer has a sacrosanct duty to conduct impartial investigations to discover the truth. It emphasized that disciplinary proceedings operate on the "balance of probabilities" standard, which is distinct from the "proof beyond reasonable doubt" standard required in criminal trials. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the Tribunal’s decision, ruling that the petitioner’s conduct undermined the criminal justice system and justified his removal from the disciplined force.

  Questions settled

  • Does the standard of proof in a departmental inquiry differ from that in a criminal trial?
  • Can an Investigating Officer be held liable for misconduct for failing to properly investigate a crime?
  • Is a Service Tribunal's decision upholding a dismissal for misconduct subject to interference if the disciplinary process was lawful?
  • Does the insertion of a lesser charge by an Investigating Officer in the face of overwhelming evidence constitute misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Ikram-us-Saqlain Haider & 3 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Communication & 2 others2024 IHC 272 · Islamabad High Court
  writ petitionjurisdiction of High Courtcivil servantFederal Service Tribunalregular promotionacting charge basisterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed before the Islamabad High Court seeking directions for the regular promotion of the petitioners, who are employees of the National Highway Authority, to the post of General Manager (BPS-19) from the date of their acting charge appointment. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain service-related matters of National Highway Authority employees, or if such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The court held that employees of the National Highway Authority are deemed civil servants under Section 13(3) of the National Highway Authority Act, 1991, and therefore, matters relating to their terms and conditions of service, including promotions, are exclusively barred from the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution, with the Federal Service Tribunal being the proper forum. The petition was accordingly dismissed as non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of the National Highway Authority are deemed civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to issue directions regarding the regular promotion of National Highway Authority employees?
  • Whether an acting charge appointment confers a vested right for regular promotion?
  • Does the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution preclude National Highway Authority employees from agitating service matters before the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ikram Ullah Khan vs Allama Iqbal Open University through its Vice2024 IHC 270 · Islamabad High Court
  writ petitionmaster and servantservice termspromotion quotadirect recruitmentnon-statutory rulesuniversity employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges an advertisement published by the Allama Iqbal Open University inviting direct recruitment for the post of Assistant Engineer (BPS-16), which the petitioner argued violated statutory quotas and deprived him of promotion. The core legal questions involved whether the university's recruitment and promotion rules are statutory in nature and whether the challenged advertisement violated the prescribed 50:50 quota and seniority-cum-fitness principles. The court held that the university's rules and service terms are non-statutory, governing the relationship of master and servant, and that the university had correctly maintained the promotion and direct recruitment roster without violating any statutory provisions. The key principle laid down is that employees governed by non-statutory rules of the Allama Iqbal Open University cannot invoke constitutional writ jurisdiction for service matters, as their remedy does not lie under constitutional petitions or service tribunals due to the master-servant framework.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the service rules of the Allama Iqbal Open University are statutory in nature?
  • Can an employee governed by non-statutory service rules invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Whether the post of Assistant Engineer in the Allama Iqbal Open University was filled in accordance with the prescribed 50:50 quota ratio?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Saleem Retired Private Secretary BS-18, Mirpur vs Vice-Chancellor2024 PLJ AJ&K 47 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  writ petitionpensionsuperannuationdepartmental inquiryretirement benefitsleave encashment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired Private Secretary (BS-18) of the Mirpur University of Science and Technology (MUST) previously transferred from the Electricity Department, filed a writ petition under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, seeking release of his pension, leave encashment, issuance of a Pension Payment Order (PPO), and quashment of an inquiry order dated 28.03.2023. The core legal question concerned whether a retired employee can be subjected to departmental inquiry and denied pension benefits despite having attained superannuation and obtaining a clearance certificate. The High Court held that once an employee has validly retired on superannuation and the Electricity Department has transferred the pension contribution to the University, the University is duty-bound to release the pension and benefits. The Court ruled that disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retired person who is no longer an employee are without jurisdiction and a nullity, and an employee cannot be penalized for any fault of the authority in promotion or upgradation. The writ petition was accepted and the impugned order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a university can withhold pension benefits of a retired employee after receiving pension contributions from the parent department?
  • Can departmental disciplinary proceedings be initiated against a person after their retirement from service?
  • Is an employee liable to be penalized for procedural faults committed by the competent authority during promotion or upgradation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ihsan Ullah alias Munshi, etc, Sikandar Hayat vs The State etc., Saleem alias2024 LHC 406, 2024 YLR 2000, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1011 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-17Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Hussain alias Kharoo vs The State2024 SCP 197, 2024 SCMR 1449, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-08
  murderocular accountmedical evidenceabscondencereasonable doubtacquittalcontradictory testimonypost-mortem delay
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a jail petition against the Lahore High Court's judgment, which had commuted the petitioner's death sentence to life imprisonment for murder under Section 302(b) PPC. The prosecution's case rested on ocular testimony from the deceased's father and brother, motive, and the petitioner's abscondence. Upon review, the Court found the motive disproved and the recovery of the weapon inconsequential due to a four-year delay. Crucially, the Court identified material contradictions in the eye-witnesses' testimonies, noting they were not present at the spot as they failed to accompany the deceased to the hospital or identify the body during the post-mortem. The Court held that medical evidence is merely confirmatory and cannot identify a culprit in an unwitnessed incident. Furthermore, abscondence alone cannot substitute for deficient substantive evidence. Applying the principle of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt,' the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to meet its burden. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the petitioner was acquitted.

  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar alias Hera alias Charlie vs The State through Prosecutor General2024 YLR 2047 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-21
  criminal appealmurder convictionsudden quarrelpremeditationeye-witness testimonyrelated witnessesSection 302(c) PPCconviction conversion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life sentence imposed by the trial court for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the circumstances warranted a conviction for premeditated murder or a lesser offense. Upon reassessment, the High Court held that while the prosecution successfully proved the appellant stabbed the deceased, the evidence demonstrated the incident arose from a sudden quarrel without premeditation. Consequently, the court converted the conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment. The court affirmed that related witnesses are credible absent proven enmity, that corroboration of eye-witness testimony is a rule of caution rather than law, and that a sudden fight lacking premeditation falls under the purview of Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court also upheld the reliability of the recovery of the murder weapon based on the appellant's pointation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of premeditation?
  • Is the testimony of related witnesses admissible and reliable in a murder trial absent proof of enmity?
  • Does the rule of corroboration for eye-witness testimony constitute a mandatory rule of law?
  • Can an accused be convicted based on the testimony of a sole eye-witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ali Haideri vs State and others2024 PLJ Islamabad 236, 2024 YLR 1963 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-05Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmed vs Muhammad Shabbir2024 PHC 208 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmed Khan s/o Abrar Ahmed Khan and others vs The State2024 SHC 1066 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-23
  pre-arrest bailcriminal misconductfurther inquiryland fraudforgerycheatingbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns applications for confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of cheating, forgery, and criminal misconduct related to real estate transactions and unauthorized land conversion. The core legal question was whether the applicants, accused of manipulating land dimensions and illegally selling property units, were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the evidence presented. The High Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, holding that the case against the applicants required further inquiry. The court reasoned that since the disputed change in plot dimensions was approved by the relevant municipal authority and occurred prior to the applicants' involvement, and because the alleged criminal misconduct required deeper evidentiary scrutiny at trial, the applicants were entitled to the concession of bail under the principle of 'further inquiry' as envisaged by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court emphasized that tentative observations made at the bail stage do not bind the trial court in its final determination on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the alleged manipulation of land dimensions by municipal authorities, prior to the current owner's tenure, constitute sufficient grounds to deny pre-arrest bail?
  • When does a criminal case involving allegations of forgery and cheating qualify for 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the concession of pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the underlying criminal liability for land conversion and sale remains a matter for trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmed Chaudhry vs Saeed Ahmed Khan, etc2024 SCP 261, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 896 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-08
  pension paymentsjudicial implementationrule of lawcontempt of courtinstitutional complianceNational Bank of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the implementation of a Supreme Court judgment dated 25.09.2017 regarding the payment of pension to over 11,000 pensioners by the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP). While the NBP President acknowledged the obligation and reported partial compliance, the Court noted that factual verification of certain pensioners remained pending. The core legal question addressed is the imperative nature of judicial compliance and the role of the judiciary in ensuring its orders are executed. The Court held that its orders are binding legal mandates, not mere recommendations, and that non-compliance undermines the rule of law, democratic governance, and public trust in the judicial system. The Court directed the NBP President to appoint a senior officer as a focal person to streamline the verification and payment process, emphasizing that the law of contempt serves as a necessary tool to ensure institutional adherence to judicial directives. The Court underscored that compliance with its judgments is a constitutional requirement essential for maintaining the balance of power and the efficacy of the administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Are orders of the Supreme Court of Pakistan merely advisory or binding legal mandates?
  • Does the failure to implement judicial decisions undermine the rule of law and public trust in the judiciary?
  • Is the power of contempt essential for the judiciary to effectively enforce its decisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmed and others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1100 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-23Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs Muhammad Anwar, etc.2024 LHC 2864, 2024 CLC 1735 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-30Read full judgment →
• Iffco Pakistan (Private) Limited vs Ghulam Murtaza & others2024 SCP 263, 2024 SCMR 1548, 2024 PLC 226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-04
  employer-employee relationshipsham outsourcinglabour lawsindustrial relationstrade union rightscontract labourconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that affirmed concurrent findings of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The core legal question was whether workers engaged through contractors in a manufacturing facility were employees of the principal company, IFFCO, or the contractors, and whether the outsourcing arrangement constituted a sham to circumvent labour laws. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the workers were indeed employees of IFFCO. The Court determined that the outsourcing agreements were mere pretenses, as the workers operated under IFFCO’s direct supervision, used its machinery, and performed permanent duties. The Court established that while businesses may outsource, such arrangements cannot be used as a weapon to exploit labour or deprive workers of fundamental rights, such as forming trade unions. The control and supervision test, alongside an integration test, remains the primary barometer for determining the true employer-employee relationship. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the concurrent findings of the lower fora were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer use outsourcing agreements to circumvent labour laws and deny workers their rights?
  • What criteria determine whether a worker is an employee of the principal company versus an independent contractor?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by the NIRC and the High Court subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Does the existence of a contractor agreement automatically absolve a principal company of employer responsibilities?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Khan vs Mst. Saima Khan and others2024 SCP 108, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 645, 2024 PLJ SC 505, PLJ 2024 SC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-15
  khuladissolution of marriagecrueltydowerfamily lawconsent
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning suits for dissolution of marriage, dower, maintenance, and dowry articles. The core legal question was whether a court can of its own motion convert a wife's prayer for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty into a decree for dissolution by way of khula when she did not seek khula and did not consent to waiving her dower. The Supreme Court held that khula is an exclusive and absolute right of a woman that must be explicitly sought with an unequivocal offer to waive her dower; a court cannot unilaterally grant khula without her consent. The Court laid down that dissolution of marriage under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 on grounds like cruelty and dissolution by way of khula exist in distinct legal domains with separate procedural requirements and legal consequences, particularly regarding the wife's right to dower, which remains protected under Section 5 of the Act and is not affected unless she voluntarily seeks khula and waives it.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court can convert a prayer for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty into a decree of khula without the wife's explicit request and consent?
  • Does a decree of dissolution of marriage on grounds other than khula affect a Muslim woman's right to her dower?
  • What are the procedural distinctions between dissolving a marriage under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 versus dissolution by way of khula?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Fibres Limited through Company Secretary vs Province of Sindh2024 PTD 1360 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Alias Taig and others vs The State2024 PCRLJ 190 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-03
  explosive substancesanti-terrorismforced disappearancebenefit of the doubtillegal detentionviolation of section 103 Cr.P.C.right to libertydignity of manacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Loralai, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 7(ff) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment each. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the charge of possessing explosive substances and having links with a banned organization beyond a reasonable doubt, given the defense's plea of forced disappearance and non-compliance with mandatory procedural laws. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to non-compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, lack of proof regarding terrorist nexus, and credible defense evidence supporting prior illegal detention. The court laid down the principle that the right to liberty and human dignity under Articles 4 and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 must be strictly guarded against forced disappearances and fabricated cases, and that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-compliance with mandatory provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 during a police raid vitiate the conviction?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal as of right when the defense raises a plausible plea of forced disappearance prior to the registration of the FIR?
  • Can a conviction for terrorism be sustained on mere assumptions and presumptions without unimpeachable and reliable prosecution evidence?
  • What is the constitutional mandate regarding the protection of personal liberty and human dignity under Articles 4 and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 in cases involving alleged illegal detentions?
  Read full judgment →
• Hydro Electric Labour Union (PESCO), KPK through President vs Federation2024 PLD Peshawar 83 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-24
  bifurcation of power companiesjudicial review of policyCouncil of Common InterestsNEPRA licensingpremature petitionadministrative restructuringPESCOHAZECO
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a registered trade union, challenged the government's decision to bifurcate the Peshawar Electric Supply Company (PESCO) and establish the Hazara Electric Supply Company (HAZECO), alleging political motivation and lack of feasibility. The core legal questions concerned whether such administrative bifurcation required fresh approval from the Council of Common Interests (CCI) and whether the court could interfere in this policy decision under its constitutional jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the challenge was premature because the new company had not yet been registered, nor had any distribution license been granted by the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA). The court ruled that administrative restructuring and policy decisions fall within the executive domain and are not subject to judicial interference. Furthermore, the court clarified that once an overarching strategic plan for the unbundling of the Water and Power Development Authority is approved by the CCI, individual administrative bifurcations do not require repeated CCI approval.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court empowered to interfere in a policy decision regarding the administrative bifurcation of a state-owned power distribution company?
  • Does the creation of a new distribution company require fresh approval from the Council of Common Interests if the overarching unbundling plan was previously approved?
  • Can a writ petition challenging the formation of a new company be maintained before the company is registered or a distribution license is granted by NEPRA?
  Read full judgment →
• Hyderabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Hcci) through duly2024 CLD 1004, 2024 PLD Islamabad 350, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 256 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-22Read full judgment →
• Hussain Zada vs Fazal Maula etc.2024 PHC 274 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-01Read full judgment →
• Hussain Ahmed and 3 others through Attorney vs Province of Sindh2024 CLC 428 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-28Read full judgment →
• Hunain alias Moon vs Murad Bakhsh2024 MLD 1785 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-19Read full judgment →
• Humayon Sajjad vs Aslam Khan2024 LHC 2268, 2024 YLR 2826 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-15Read full judgment →
• Human Rights Commission of Pakistan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Islamabad and another2024 LHC 3763, 2025 PLD Lahore 7 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-06Read full judgment →
• Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and another vs Government of the Punjab2024 LHC 4742 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Huma Imtiaz d/o Khawaja Imtiaz Ahmed, r/o Tehsil and District2024 SC AJK 44 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Hukman Shah and others vs The State etc.2024 PHC 182 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-14
  circumstantial evidenceretracted confessionlast seen evidencemurder referencedeath penalty commutationcriminal appealcompensation to heirs
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the conviction of two appellants for the murder of a taxi driver, robbery, and extortion. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the admissibility of retracted judicial confessions, and the application of the 'last seen' theory in the absence of direct ocular evidence. The Court upheld the convictions under Sections 302(b), 386, and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, finding the circumstantial chain—comprising the recovery of the body on the appellants' pointation, last-seen evidence, and corroborated judicial confessions—complete and unbroken. However, the Court acquitted the appellants under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, noting it applied to the receiver of stolen goods, not the robbers. While confirming the death sentence for the principal shooter, the Court commuted the death sentence of the co-appellant to life imprisonment, noting his role was limited to abetment. The Court affirmed that while circumstantial evidence must exclude all hypotheses of innocence, a retracted confession remains admissible if proven voluntary and corroborated by other evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events is unbroken?
  • Is a retracted judicial confession admissible if it is found to be voluntary and corroborated by independent evidence?
  • Does the 'last seen' theory shift the burden of proof to the accused to explain the deceased's fate?
  • Is it mandatory for a trial court to order compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Hubdar alias Huboo Jagrani and others vs The State2024 YLR 599 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-13
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtanti-terrorismmandatory mashirnamacontradictions in evidencerecoveryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two criminal appeals arising from a single judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the charges beyond reasonable doubt, whether mandatory requirements of recovery under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were fulfilled, and whether the sudden incident attracted the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The court held that numerous material contradictions, non-compliance with mandatory search and recovery provisions, and lack of independent evidence rendered the prosecution's case highly doubtful. Furthermore, the court held that sudden private altercations without the requisite intent or motivation to create terror or panic do not fall within the ambit of terrorism under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were granted the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sudden, unplanned altercation that incidentally creates fear constitute an act of terrorism under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to associate private independent witnesses from a populated locality during searches and recoveries under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are material contradictions between the statements of the complainant and other prosecution eyewitnesses fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove its case through unimpeachable and certain evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Honda Atlas Cars Pakistan Limited and another vs Saleem Akhtar Farooq2024 CLC 1575 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-01Read full judgment →
• Hizbullah and another vs The State and another2024 PHC 238, 2024 MLD 1962, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1073 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-23Read full judgment →
• Hina Siraj Manoo W/o Siraj Sadiq Manoo vs The State & another2024 SHC 722 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-03
  surety bondsine die adjournmentdischarge of accusedcriminal proceedings staypersonal recognizance bondcommercial courtbail and sureties
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, a surety for the accused, challenged an order passed by the Special Court (Commercial) which rejected her application for the return of surety papers and substitution of sureties with a P.R. bond after the criminal proceedings were adjourned sine die pending the disposal of a connected civil suit. The core legal question was whether surety bonds should remain intact or be replaced by personal bonds when a criminal case is adjourned sine die and proceedings are kept in abeyance. The Sindh High Court held that when criminal proceedings are stopped sine die, the accused is released from the liability of regular attendance, and consequently, the surety's liability also ceases, making it unjust to withhold surety papers indefinitely. The Court ruled that the accused must furnish personal bonds for future appearance while allowing the return of the surety papers. The key principle laid down is that the suspension of criminal proceedings sine die terminates the immediate attendance requirement of the accused and dissolves the continuous liability of the surety, permitting the substitution of personal bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether surety bonds remain intact when criminal proceedings are adjourned sine die pending civil litigation?
  • Can a surety be compelled to continue furnishing security for an indefinite period when a trial is kept in abeyance?
  • Should an accused furnish a personal bond in place of third-party sureties upon the suspension of trial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Hina Imtiaz vs Additional District Judge etc.2024 LHC 2451 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-24Read full judgment →
• Hina Bibi vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary and others2024 MLD 650 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-24Read full judgment →
• Hina Asif W/o Jamal vs The State and 03 others2024 SHC 236 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-18Read full judgment →
• Hilal Foods (Pvt.) Limited (Formerly Hilal Confectionery (Pvt.) Limited)2024 PLD Sindh 184, 2024 CLD 713 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-04Read full judgment →
• Higher Education Commission vs Dr. Nousheen Iram, and others2024 IHC 118, 2025 PLD Islamabad 41 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-28Read full judgment →
• Hidayatullah vs Muhammad Mushtaque2024 MLD 681 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-28Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Usman vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2024 PLD Peshawar 33 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-25Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Bilal and another vs Mst. Asmat Bibi and 4 others2024 CLC 1772 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-06Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Ali Kakar son of Abdul Haq resident of Manha, District Ziarat.,RasoolPTCL 2024 CL. 106 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hazoor Bakhsh vs The State2024 MLD 1756 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-09-26
  criminal appealqatl-bis-sababbenefit of doubtcontradictory evidencewithholding of witnessconviction set asidemedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kalat, whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 322, 337-A(i), and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant through consistent medical and ocular evidence connecting him to the fatal incident. The Balochistan High Court held that material contradictions between the prompt FIR, ocular testimony, and medical evidence, alongside the withholding of a material witness, rendered the prosecution's case highly doubtful and demonstrated that the trial court travelled beyond the charge. The court laid down the principle that an accused cannot be convicted under Qatal-bis-Sabab or related hurt provisions without concrete evidence establishing a direct causal link between an unlawful act of the accused and the resulting death or injury. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted for Qatal-bis-Sabab without concrete evidence of an unlawful act causing death?
  • Does a material contradiction between the prompt FIR and subsequent ocular testimony vitiate the prosecution case?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution withholding a material eyewitness under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a trial court convict an accused for offenses not included in the formal charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazoor Ali Khan vs Govt. of KP thr. C.S. etc2024 PHC 218, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1501 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-23
  public service commissionfemale quotazonal allocationpurposive interpretationwrit jurisdictionmerit-based appointmentadministrative instructions
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the appointment of a respondent as an Assistant Public Prosecutor (BPS-17) by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission. The petitioner, a candidate for the same post, contended that the respondent, having been shortlisted for an interview under the female quota due to a relaxed threshold, should have been appointed against a female quota seat rather than a General Quota seat (Zone-IV). The petitioner argued this deprived him of the Zone-IV seat. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Commission’s decision to place the respondent in the General Quota—based on her superior merit score—was legally sound. The Court established that the 10% female quota is intended to redress under-representation and should be construed purposively to allow female candidates to compete in the general cadre. Consequently, a candidate’s initial shortlisting method does not restrict their final placement if their merit qualifies them for a general seat, thereby maximizing the overall representation of women in government services.

  Questions settled

  • Can a female candidate shortlisted under a reserved quota be appointed against a general quota seat if her merit score qualifies her?
  • Does the 10% female quota in provincial services restrict high-performing female candidates to reserved seats only?
  • Does the method of shortlisting a candidate for an interview dictate their final placement in a recruitment process?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazaray Khan and others, Muhammad Ayub vs The State & another2024 SCP 323, 2024 SCMR 2042 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-24
  benefit of doubtmurdereyewitness credibilitycriminal appealappreciation of evidencefirearm recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning convictions for murder, attempted murder, house trespass, and anti-terrorism offences. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence, the credibility of eyewitness testimony suffering from material contradictions and improvements, the failure to send crime empties for forensic analysis, and the withholding of material witnesses. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the uncorroborated and doubtful testimony of eyewitnesses who suffered no injuries despite close-range indiscriminate firing, coupled with material discrepancies and unproved recoveries, created a reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the appellants. The Court reiterated the established legal principle that the benefit of any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the appeal filed by the convicts was accepted, their convictions and sentences were set aside, and they were acquitted of the charge, while the state and complainant appeals seeking enhancement of sentences and challenging acquittals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions and dishonest improvements in the testimony of eyewitnesses can be a ground for extending the benefit of doubt to the accused?
  • Does the failure to send crime empties to the firearm expert for analysis weaken the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal effect under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 of withholding material eyewitnesses during trial?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to acquittal when prosecution evidence lacks independent corroboration in cases involving previous enmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Ali vs The State2024 IHC 10 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-18
  post-arrest bailnarcoticschemical examiner reportspeedy trialfurther inquiryprohibitory clausefundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by an accused charged under Section 9(1)(6)(c) of the Control of the Narcotic Substances Act 1997, for the alleged possession of 1310 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, yet the chemical examiner's report remained pending and the trial had not commenced. The court held that the petitioner should be released on bail. The ratio established is that the absence of a forensic laboratory report to verify the nature of the alleged contraband renders the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and the state's failure to provide funding for chemical examinations cannot justify the indefinite incarceration of an accused, particularly when the investigation is complete and no tampering with evidence is likely.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a chemical examiner's report regarding the nature of recovered contraband render a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the right to a speedy trial a fundamental right that entitles an accused to bail when the trial is delayed due to administrative failures?
  • Can an accused be granted bail in a narcotics case falling within the prohibitory clause if the forensic report is pending and the investigation is complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Ali and others vs The State2024 MLD 907 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-15
  dacoityfirearm injuriesprompt FIRocular accountmedical evidencered-handed arrestcriminal appealrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 397/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity and causing firearm injuries during a robbery at a commodity shop. The core legal questions involve the credibility of ocular and medical evidence, prompt registration of the First Information Report, and the evidentiary value of red-handed apprehension with incriminating recoveries. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the First Information Report was lodged with promptitude, injured eyewitnesses corroborated the occurrence, and prompt spot-arrests along with positive forensic reports established the guilt of the accused. The court laid down the principle that the prompt lodging of an FIR excludes fabrication, and the natural testimony of injured eyewitnesses corroborated by prompt spot recoveries and medical evidence forms a safe basis for a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prompt registration of an FIR excludes the possibility of fabrication and deliberation in a criminal case?
  • Does the testimony of injured eyewitnesses carry special weight in corroborating the prosecution's case?
  • Can apprehension of the accused on the spot along with recoveries of the weapon and snatched property form a reliable basis for maintaining a conviction under Section 397/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Whether minor inconsistencies in cross-examination are sufficient to discredit an otherwise consistent and confidence-inspiring ocular account?
  Read full judgment →
• Hasrat Khan vs The State2024 SCP 273, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 911, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-01
  narcotic substanceschemical analysissample collectionconscious possessionsentencing reductioninvestigation negligencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged his conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 320 kilograms of charas. The core legal question concerned the validity of the conviction when the prosecution failed to obtain separate samples from each packet for chemical analysis, instead relying on a single consolidated sample. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but found the investigation method procedurally flawed, noting a clear violation of the principle established in Ameer Zeb v. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380), which mandates that samples must be separated from each packet of narcotics and tested individually. Consequently, the Court held that only the weight of the single tested sample (3.200 kilograms) could be legally attributed to the petitioner for sentencing purposes. The Court dismissed the petition regarding the conviction but converted it into an appeal and partly allowed it, significantly reducing the petitioner's sentence to six years and six months rigorous imprisonment, while emphasizing the necessity for proper training and capacity building for narcotics investigation and prosecution agencies in Balochistan.

  Questions settled

  • Is a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 sustainable if only a consolidated sample is tested instead of samples from each individual packet?
  • Does the failure to test each packet of recovered narcotics individually invalidate the entire conviction or merely affect the quantum of sentence?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to follow the procedure for sample collection in narcotics cases as established in Ameer Zeb v. The State?
  Read full judgment →
• Haroon-ur-Rasheed and others vs Shahnawaz Memon and others2024 SHC 602 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-31Read full judgment →
• Haroon vs The State2024 MLD 1368 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-28
  murdersole eye-witnessbenefit of the doubtunnatural conductcriminal appealacquittalstrangulation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal question revolves around whether the testimony of the sole eye-witness, who is the daughter of the deceased, was trustworthy and sufficient to sustain a conviction, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the conduct of the sole eye-witness was contrary to natural human logic and reason, rendering her testimony unreliable, and that corroborative evidence was lacking. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction by extending the benefit of the doubt, and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of a sole eye-witness whose behavior during and after the commission of an offense defies natural human conduct and common sense cannot form the basis of a safe conviction without reliable corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a sole eye-witness whose post-incident conduct defies natural human behavior can be relied upon for a conviction?
  • Does medical evidence regarding the cause of death automatically establish the identity of the assailant?
  • Can an appellant be acquitted of a murder charge when the prosecution fails to provide trustworthy corroborative evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Haris Maqsood S/O Maqsood vs The State2024 SHC 726 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-04
  post-arrest bailSindh Arms Act 2013unlicensed armsarms vs firearmsfurther inquiryindependent witnessesSection 103 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act 2013, following the recovery of an unlicensed pistol. The core legal question before the court was whether the recovery of a pistol falls under Section 23(1)(a) or Section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act 2013, and whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that under Section 2 of the Act, 'pistol' is categorized under the definition of 'arms' rather than 'firearms'. Consequently, the applicable statutory provision and quantum of punishment remain a matter of further inquiry for the trial court to determine. The court laid down the principle that 'arms' and 'firearms' are distinctly defined under the Sindh Arms Act 2013 with separate penal provisions, and where non-association of independent witnesses under Section 103 Cr.P.C. creates doubt, the case warrants further inquiry under Section 497 Cr.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Does a pistol fall within the definition of 'arms' or 'firearms' under Section 2 of the Sindh Arms Act 2013?
  • Can punishment under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act 2013 be awarded for an offense involving recovery of a weapon categorized as an 'arm' under Section 24?
  • Whether the non-association of independent witnesses during search and recovery makes a case one of further inquiry for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Haresh Kumar vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1075 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-20
  criminal appealrapefornicationalteration of convictionanti-terrorism actconsent
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Sections 376, 114, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the elements of rape and terrorism, or if the evidence pointed towards a consensual act or fornication instead of forced rape, and whether anti-terrorism provisions were applicable. The Sindh High Court held that the absence of physical injuries, lack of resistance, an unbolted washroom door, and absence of panic indicated that the offense fell within the ambit of fornication rather than forced rape, and further held that no ingredients of terrorism were established. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act and altered the conviction from Section 376 to Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, reducing the sentence to the term already undergone. The key principle laid down is that where evidence fails to establish force, resistance, or lack of consent in a sexual assault allegation, the offense may be altered from rape to fornication.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can alter a conviction from rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code to fornication under Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code based on the lack of evidence regarding force or resistance?
  • Do the circumstances of an alleged hospital assault involving an unbolted door and absence of physical trauma attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Whether the absence of hue and cry or resistance from the victim negates the essential ingredients of forced rape under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Hareef Ahmed Keerio and others vs Quaid-e-Awam University and others2024 SHC 1062, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 343 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-11
  quo warrantopublic officewrit jurisdictionuniversity appointmentsservice mattersnepotism
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners invoked the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking a writ of quo warranto regarding various academic and administrative appointments at the Quaid-e-Awam University of Engineering, Science and Technology, Nawabshah. The core legal questions concerned whether these university positions constituted public offices subject to quo warranto and whether the appointments were made in accordance with the law. The Court held that the petitions were devoid of force and dismissed them. Relying on established precedent, the Court reiterated that for a writ of quo warranto to issue, the office must be public, created by statute, and substantive in nature, involving the exercise of sovereign functions. The Court found that the impugned positions did not meet these criteria. Furthermore, the Court noted that the primary respondent had already vacated the disputed positions and secured a new appointment through a valid selection process, and allegations of nepotism were unsubstantiated. The judgment reinforces the principle that quo warranto is not a mechanism to challenge appointments to non-sovereign, non-statutory academic positions.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential prerequisites for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto?
  • Does the post of an Associate Professor at a university constitute a public office for the purposes of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a writ of quo warranto be maintained against an individual who has already vacated the impugned office?
  Read full judgment →
• Harbin Electric International Company Ltd & Another vs Siddiqsons2024 SHC 254, 2024 PLJ Karachi 97 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-25Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs The State2024 LHC 2606, 2025 MLD 862 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-22
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtdying declarationmedical evidenceocular accountballistic reportacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the alleged inconsistencies in the ocular account, medical evidence, and the validity of the dying declaration. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The Court found that the ocular account was directly contradicted by medical evidence, which showed no signs of a contact-fire shot, contrary to the complainant's claim. Furthermore, the alleged dying declaration was deemed unreliable as it lacked necessary medical verification and was treated merely as a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the motive was not proven, and ballistic reports failed to link the recovered weapon to the crime. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that a single circumstance creating doubt is sufficient to grant the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of blackening, burning, or tattooing on a gunshot wound contradict an ocular account claiming a contact-range fire shot?
  • Can a statement recorded by a police officer without medical verification of the declarant's fitness be treated as a valid dying declaration?
  • Is a statement recorded by police in the absence of hospital staff or medical verification admissible as a dying declaration?
  • Does the failure of ballistic evidence to match recovered empties with a weapon constitute a ground for acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Hantho vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace Tharparkar & others2024 SHC 1142 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-01
  Justice of PeaceRegistration of FIRCognizable offenseCriminal ProcedurePolice investigationSection 22-A CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application challenges an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge, Tharparkar, which directed the Station House Officer (SHO) to register an FIR based on a complaint alleging criminal trespass and outraging the modesty of the complainant's wife. The core legal question concerns the scope of the Justice of Peace's authority under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the registration of FIRs. The High Court held that the Justice of Peace's role is limited to determining whether a cognizable offense is apparent from the complaint and directing the police to record the statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that the SHO is duty-bound to record information regarding cognizable offenses, but this does not preclude an impartial investigation. The Court disposed of the application by directing the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) to investigate the matter, ensuring that if a criminal offense is established, the law takes its course, while simultaneously warning that penal action shall be taken against the complainant if the allegations are found to be false.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of the authority of a Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the registration of an FIR?
  • Is a Station House Officer obligated to register an FIR upon the report of a cognizable offense?
  • Can a Justice of Peace investigate or prosecute a criminal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamza Sarwar, Planning Officer (B-17), P&D Department vs Services and General Administration Department and 6 others2024 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 180 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Hamza Rasheed Khan vs Election Appellate Tribunal, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others_2024 SCP 65, 2024 PLJ SC 379, 2024 SCP 66, 2024 SCP 6, PLD 2024 Supreme · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Article 62(1)(f)election disqualificationconstitutional interpretationself-executory provisionfundamental rightsdue processstare decisisElections Act 2017
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the constitutional interpretation of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, specifically whether disqualification thereunder constitutes a permanent bar to contesting elections. The Supreme Court addressed whether the precedent in Sami Ullah Baloch v. Abdul Karim Nousherwani, which established a lifelong disqualification, correctly interpreted the Constitution. The Court held that Article 62(1)(f) is not a self-executory provision, as it fails to identify a competent court of law, prescribe a procedure, or specify the duration of disqualification. Consequently, the Court overruled Sami Ullah Baloch, determining that lifetime disqualification amounts to an unwarranted reading into the Constitution. The Court emphasized that provisions curtailing fundamental rights, such as the right to contest elections, must be construed restrictively and narrowly. It affirmed that in the absence of specific legislation, Article 62(1)(f) serves merely as a guideline for voters. Furthermore, the Court recognized that Section 232(2) of the Elections Act, 2017, which limits disqualification to five years, renders the issue of duration moot, ensuring consistency with due process and fundamental rights.

  Questions settled

  • Is Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 a self-executory provision?
  • Does the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 impose a permanent or lifelong disqualification for candidates under Article 62(1)(f)?
  • Do the Supreme Court or High Courts have the jurisdiction to make a declaration of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) in the absence of specific enabling legislation?
  • Can a court of law create or enlarge its own jurisdiction to issue declarations under Article 62(1)(f) without statutory authorization?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamza Rasheed Khan and another vs Election Appellate Tribunal, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others2024 PLD Supreme Court 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-08
  Article 62(1)(f)lifetime disqualificationfundamental rightsdue processright to contest electionsElections Act 2017
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan, by a majority of 6 to 1, addressed whether Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution is self-executory and whether it imposes a lifetime disqualification. The core legal questions concerned the procedural requirements, identification of the competent court, and duration of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) in light of the fundamental right to a fair trial. The court held by majority that Article 62(1)(f) is not a self-executory provision as it lacks specified procedures, forums, and periods for disqualification, and that imposing a lifetime disqualification through civil court declarations violates fundamental rights to due process and political participation. The previous precedent in Sami Ullah Baloch v. Abdul Karim Nausherwani was overruled to the extent of imposing lifelong disqualification. The court established that until a specific law makes it fully executory, Article 62(1)(f) serves as a guideline for voters, while noting that Section 232(2) of the Elections Act, 2017 now prescribes a five-year disqualification period.

  Questions settled

  • Is Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Pakistan a self-executory provision?
  • Does Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution impose a lifetime disqualification upon a person based on a declaration by a court of civil jurisdiction?
  • Whether the interpretation of Article 62(1)(f) given in Sami Ullah Baloch v. Abdul Karim Nausherwani holding disqualification to be lifelong is correct?
  • What is the effect of Section 232(2) added to the Elections Act, 2017 regarding the period of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f)?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamza Khan vs The State and another2024 YLR 2111 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-16Read full judgment →
• Hammad Tariq s/o Muhammad Shareef Tariq vs Additional Sessions2024 SC AJK 84 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Hammad Ali Khan and others vs Mst. Sadia Akbar and others2024 MLD 1445 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-25
  constitutional petitionrecovery of dowergold ornamentsmaintenance allowancemisreading of evidencefamily courtiddat period
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioners to challenge the appellate judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, which had partially accepted the respondent's appeal by granting her 10-tola gold ornaments as dower and maintenance allowance for the iddat period. The core legal question revolved around whether the lower appellate court correctly appreciated the evidence regarding the payment and discharge of the dower amount in the shape of 10-tola gold ornaments. The Lahore High Court held that the appellate court misread and misappreciated the evidence, noting that the petitioner had successfully established through consistent pleadings and unrebutted witness testimony that the dower had already been handed over prior to rukhsati. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and modified the impugned judgment by setting aside the award of 10-tola gold ornaments as dower. The key principle laid down is that while constitutional courts ordinarily do not re-examine factual findings, they are fully competent to interfere under Article 199 when findings of lower forums suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence, erroneous assumptions, or arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the strict application of evidentiary rules under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 apply uniformly to proceedings before a Family Court?
  • Is a husband's uncontroverted oral testimony and supporting witness statement regarding the pre-rukhsati delivery of dower sufficient to prove its discharge?
  • What are the precise grounds upon which the High Court may review and correct factual determinations made by lower family and appellate courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamid-uz-Zafar vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1370 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-18Read full judgment →
• Hamid Mehmood & Others vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 126 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-24Read full judgment →
• Hamid Khan through his Authorized Attorney vs Federation of Pakistan2024 IHC 44, 2024 YLR 59 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-02Read full judgment →
• Hameeda vs Khan Muhammad and 2 others2024 MLD 51 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-16Read full judgment →
• Hameed Masih vs University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir through Vice2024 PLJ AJ&K 117 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Hamayun Khan vs The State through Prosecutor General, Balochistan2024 PCRLJ 1597 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-08-01
  narcotics possessionchain of custodysafe transmissionforensic science laboratory reportstandard of proofcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 4 kilograms of charas. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and the safe transmission of the recovered narcotics from the point of seizure to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the samples, noting a material discrepancy between the date of receipt of samples recorded in the FSL reports and the date the investigating officer allegedly received them for transmission. Citing established precedents, the Court emphasized that any break in the chain of custody or lapse in the control of possession renders the Government Analyst's report unreliable and insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release, reaffirming the principle that the harsher the sentence, the stricter the standard of proof required in criminal cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy in the dates of receipt of narcotic samples between the Forensic Science Laboratory report and the investigating officer's records vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the unbroken chain of custody of narcotics from the place of recovery to the laboratory to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • What is the impact of a break in the chain of custody on the reliability of a Government Analyst's report in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamayun Ashraf Awan vs Bilal Faisal Amin and others2024 PCRLJ 1746 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-07
  constitutional petitionwrit of certiorariSection 182 PPCacquittal under Section 249-AQalandraconcurrent findingslocus standi of private person
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the concurrent findings of the Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge acquitting Respondent No. 1 under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in proceedings initiated via a Qalandra under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal questions concerned the maintainability of a constitutional writ petition against an order of acquittal under Section 249-A, the locus standi of a private party to pursue Section 182 proceedings, and the permissible scope of certiorari in cases with concurrent factual findings. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that a writ petition is not maintainable against an acquittal under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. The Court held that under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, cognizance for an offence under Section 182 PPC requires a complaint by the concerned public servant, not a private individual. Furthermore, the High Court exercises supervisory rather than appellate jurisdiction under Article 199 and will not disturb concurrent findings of fact absent jurisdictional error, illegality, or violation of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional writ petition under Article 199 maintainable against an order of acquittal passed under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a private person have the locus standi to pursue a Qalandra under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in view of Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of subordinate courts in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamayoun Khan vs Mst. Naseeb Zeba and another2024 PHC 80, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 65 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-01Read full judgment →
• Hamayoon Shahzad vs The State2024 SHC 534 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-20
  pre-arrest bailmisappropriation of propertydelay in FIRprohibitory clausemalafide intenttentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, which had denied bail in a case involving alleged misappropriation of government property under sections 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the significant delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of recovery of the case property, and the potential for ulterior motives. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail. It reasoned that the inordinate delay of over seven years in reporting the incident, combined with the lack of recovery and the fact that the offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranted relief. The Court established that while deeper appreciation of evidence is reserved for trial, a tentative assessment of the record indicating prima facie malafide or ulterior motives justifies the exercise of extraordinary discretion to grant pre-arrest bail to prevent victimization.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Can the court consider the absence of recovery of case property during a tentative assessment for bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the alleged offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • To what extent can the court examine the merits of a case during the stage of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakimsons (Impex) (Private) Limited through duly authorized2024 PLD Sindh 132 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-25Read full judgment →
• Hajvairy Associates (Pvt.) Limited vs M/s Power Construction Corporation2024 IHC 184, 2024 CLD 1507 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Zahid and another vs Mst. Neelam Gul and another2024 PHC 68 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Musharraf Mahmood Khan (deceased) through his legal heirs vs Sardarzada Zafar Abbas (deceased) through his L.Rs., etc2024 SCP 145, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 588, 2025 PLJ SC 23 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-04
  civil revisionnon-prosecutionlimitation periodinherent jurisdictionrestoration of petitionstatutory interpretationresiduary article
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition challenged a High Court order that refused to restore a Civil Revision dismissed for non-prosecution, primarily because the application for restoration was filed after the 60-day deadline set by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court had the authority to curtail the statutory limitation period for restoring a dismissed revision petition by imposing a 60-day limit, and what the correct limitation period is for such applications. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction by restricting the limitation period to 60 days, as the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 contains no specific provision for restoring a revision dismissed for non-prosecution. Consequently, the Court must invoke its inherent powers under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies, providing a three-year limitation period. The Court affirmed that technicalities should not defeat the ends of justice and that courts cannot override statutory limitation periods.

  Questions settled

  • What is the limitation period for filing an application to restore a civil revision dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Can a High Court restrict the statutory limitation period for filing a restoration application by imposing a shorter deadline in its dismissal order?
  • Under which provision of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can a court restore a civil revision dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Does Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to applications for the restoration of a civil revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ashraf Memon vs Ministry of Housing & Works & others2024 SHC 1346 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad @ Maloo vs Javed Ali & others2024 SHC 628 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-31Read full judgment →
• Haji Mohammad Ismail Mills Limited vs Executive Director_Hod, Adjudication-I SECP, Islamabad2024 CLD 837 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2024-02-27Read full judgment →
• Haji Mir Badshah and others vs District Officer, Revenue & Estate/Land2024 PHC 170, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 113 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-06Read full judgment →
• Haji Khalid Dad Nasir and another vs Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan)2024 CLD 1421 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-20Read full judgment →
• Haji Idrees vs Haji Nawab Khan Afridi etc.2024 PHC 272 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-02Read full judgment →
• Haji Ghulam Rasool and another vs Shah Nawaz and others2024 PLJ SC 61 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-02
  specific performancelimitation periodagreement to sellburden of proofaccrual of cause of actiontime-barred suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The core legal question concerned whether the suit, filed on 11.11.2007 based on an agreement dated 24.05.2003, was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908. The petitioners argued that since no specific date for performance was fixed in the agreement, the limitation period commenced only upon the respondents' refusal to perform. The Supreme Court observed that while Article 113 provides a three-year limitation period—commencing from the date fixed for performance or, if none is fixed, from the date the plaintiff has notice of refusal—the burden of proof lay on the petitioners to establish the date of such refusal. Finding that the petitioners failed to lead credible evidence to prove the date of refusal, the Court held that the suit was time-barred. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the lower courts' findings on the limitation issue.

  Questions settled

  • When does the limitation period for a suit for specific performance commence if no date for performance is fixed in the agreement?
  • Does the burden of proving the date of refusal to perform a contract lie on the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance?
  • Is a suit for specific performance maintainable if the plaintiff fails to prove the date of refusal to perform within the statutory limitation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Aziz-ur-Rehman vs Fazal Wadood & others2024 PHC 298, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 186, 2025 CLC 644 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-27Read full judgment →
• Haji & another vs The State2024 SHC 1196 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-21
  pre-arrest bailrapenon-bailable offenceDNA reportprohibitory clauseminor victim
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by two applicants facing charges under Sections 376, 506(2), and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dismissal of their earlier application by the Additional Sessions Judge. The primary legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidence presented. The Court held that the case against the first applicant, involving allegations of rape of a minor, was non-bailable, non-compoundable, and fell within the prohibitory clause, especially as forensic DNA evidence corroborated the allegation of intercourse. Consequently, the Court recalled the interim bail for the first applicant. However, regarding the second applicant, the Court found the alleged offences under Sections 506(2) and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were bailable and that he might have been unnecessarily implicated. Therefore, the Court confirmed the interim bail for the second applicant. The judgment reaffirms that bail is not appropriate for serious, non-bailable offences where forensic evidence supports the prosecution's case, while bailable offences allow for more lenient consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Does a DNA report linking an accused to a victim's child negate claims of mala fides in a rape case?
  • Are offences under Sections 506(2) and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bailable?
  • Can interim bail be confirmed for an accused charged with rape of a minor when forensic evidence supports the allegation?
  Read full judgment →
• Haider Mehar vs The State2024 SCP 188, 2024 SCMR 1471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-24
  narcotics recoverycharas and heroinleave to appealreappraisal of evidencesafe custody of samplesforensic science agency reportcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a criminal petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed his appeal and upheld his conviction and sentence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner was arrested during a raid based on spy information, leading to the alleged recovery of 2300 grams of charas, 700 grams of heroin, and sale proceeds from his possession. The core legal questions revolved around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and whether the courts below misread or ignored material evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution witnesses remained consistent regarding the raid, arrest, search, recovery, sample preparation, and safe custody of the contraband, which was further confirmed by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency report. Finding no misreading, non-reading, or illegality in the judgments of the lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and declined leave to appeal, affirming the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of police officials regarding search and recovery of narcotics is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does a consistent and unblemished chain of custody regarding recovered contraband samples satisfy the legal requirements of proof in narcotics cases?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the High Court in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Haider Khan vs Sher Khan and 3 others2024 PLD Balochistan 30 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
• Hafiza Bushra Gul vs University of Science & Technology, Bannu through its2022 PHC 446, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 302 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-04
  service matterselection boardconstitutional jurisdictionapprobation and reprobationinterview marksrules applicable at appointmentuniversity appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by an unsuccessful candidate seeking a direction for her appointment as a Lecturer in Physics against a rival candidate after participating in the selection process conducted by the University of Science & Technology, Bannu. The core legal questions involved whether the rules in force at the time of the advertisement or those in force at the time of appointment were applicable, whether an unsuccessful candidate who participated without protest could challenge the selection process, and whether the High Court could substitute its own opinion for the subjective assessment of the Selection Board. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the rules in force on the date of appointment govern the selection, that a candidate who participates in a process and fails cannot subsequently challenge it under the principle of approbation and reprobation, and that the constitutional jurisdiction of the court does not extend to substituting the subjective evaluation or interviewing marks awarded by a selection panel.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rules and conditions applicable to a selection process are those in force at the time of advertising the posts or those in force on the date of appointment?
  • Does a candidate who willingly participates in a selection process without protest lose the right to challenge the same process upon being unsuccessful?
  • Can a High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction substitute its own opinion for the subjective assessment and marks awarded by an interview or selection board?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Qari Abdul Fateh through L.Rs vs Ms. Urooj Fatima and others2024 SCP 259, 2024 SCMR 1709 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-24
  specific performanceoral agreementpleadingsburden of proofcivil revisioncontractual capacityevidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed a civil revision regarding the specific performance of an alleged oral agreement for the sale of agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had sufficiently proven the existence of the oral agreement in accordance with established legal requirements. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish the agreement. The Court affirmed that while oral agreements are enforceable, they require the clearest and most satisfactory evidence. Crucially, the Court laid down the principle that a party claiming an oral agreement must explicitly plead the date, time, place, and names of witnesses in the plaint. Failure to include these particulars constitutes a fatal defect, and parties cannot improve their case through evidence at trial that contradicts or supplements the original pleadings. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that evidence cannot be considered on a plea of fact not raised in the pleadings, and the petitioner failed to prove the authority of the agent who purportedly entered the agreement.

  Questions settled

  • Is an oral agreement for the sale of immovable property enforceable if the specific particulars of the agreement are not pleaded in the plaint?
  • Can a party improve their case by introducing evidence of details regarding an oral agreement that were not mentioned in the original pleadings?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to plead the date, time, place, and names of witnesses in a suit for specific performance based on an oral agreement?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a civil revision under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Bilal and others vs Auqaf Department through Chief2024 IHC 212, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 404 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-30
  provincial quotafundamental rightshereditary employmentequal opportunityconstitutional interpretationservice rulesIslamabad Capital Territory
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged an advertisement for the post of Khateeb in Islamabad, contesting the prescribed age limit, the allocation of provincial quotas, and the absence of a quota for children of former Khateebs. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the age criteria, the constitutionality of provincial quotas, and the existence of a right to hereditary employment. The Court held that the age criteria were legally valid under the Islamabad Capital Territory Auqaf Employees Service Rules, 1998. Regarding quotas, the Court ruled that the allocation of provincial quotas for posts within the Islamabad Capital Territory is unconstitutional as it violates Article 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which guarantees equal opportunity and prohibits discrimination based on residence or place of birth, subject only to limited residency requirements under Article 27(2). Furthermore, the Court rejected the claim for hereditary employment, affirming that public sector jobs cannot be reserved for kin of former employees, as such practices violate fundamental rights to equality and merit-based competition under Articles 9, 18, 25, and 27 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Are provincial or regional quotas for federal or Islamabad Capital Territory posts constitutional under Article 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can public sector employment be reserved for the children of former employees based on legitimate expectation or hereditary rights?
  • Does the imposition of a maximum age limit for government recruitment violate fundamental rights if prescribed under valid statutory rules?
  • To what extent can a provincial authority prescribe residency requirements for government posts under Article 27(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Atif Mumtaz vs Senior Member Board of Revenue Punjab, etc2024 LHC 4048 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hafiz Malik Muhammad Umar vs Government of Punjab, etc.2024 LHC 709 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-13Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Malik Kamran Akbar, etc. vs Muhammad Shafi (deceased) through LRs, etc2024 SCP 81, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-02
  Section 12(2) C.P.C.specific performancefraud and misrepresentationconcurrent findingsservice of summonsfinality of litigationex-parte decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order dismissing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners, legal heirs of a defendant in a specific performance suit, alleged fraud and lack of service of summons regarding a decree that had attained finality through concurrent findings up to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the court is mandatorily required to frame issues and record evidence in every Section 12(2) application, and whether the petitioners’ claims of non-service justified reopening the litigation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to substantiate allegations of fraud or lack of jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that it is not incumbent upon a court to frame issues and record evidence in every Section 12(2) application; rather, the court has discretion to determine the procedure based on the nature of the allegations. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 12(2) applies to any person adversely affected by a judgment, not just the original parties.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court mandatorily required to frame issues and record evidence in every application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the term 'person' in Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 restrict the remedy exclusively to the judgment-debtor?
  • Can an ex-parte decree be set aside solely on the ground of irregularity in the service of summons if the defendant had knowledge of the hearing?
  • What is the appropriate forum for filing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the final judgment was passed by an appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Khair Muhammad Choliani vs Zarai Tarqiati Bank Ltd. and Others2024 SHC 106 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-07Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Aurangzeb Farooqi vs Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan & Ors2024 SHC 72 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-17Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Ammar Yasir vs Returning Officer Na-59 and another, Returning2024 LHC 130, 2024 PLD Lahore 351 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-09Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Ullah, etc vs State, etcPLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1173 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-25
  Illegal Dispossession Actwithdrawal of complaintcompromiseacquittalcriminal appealprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Alipur, arising from a private complaint alleging illegal dispossession from land. During the hearing of the appeal, the complainant submitted an affidavit and expressed a desire to withdraw the complaint due to a compromise reached between the parties, stating that possession of the disputed land had been restored to him. The core legal question concerned the effect of a compromise and the withdrawal of a private complaint in proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Lahore High Court held that a complainant may withdraw a complaint on any consideration even if the offences are non-compoundable, relying on established precedent. Consequently, the Court allowed the withdrawal of the complaint and acquitted the appellants of the charge, ordering their immediate release unless required in other cases.

  Questions settled

  • Can a complainant withdraw a private complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 upon entering into a compromise?
  • Whether the withdrawal of a complaint is permissible when the underlying offences are non-compoundable?
  • What is the effect of a compromise between the parties on a conviction under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah S/O Muhammad Iqbal vs The State2024 SHC 774 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-15
  post-arrest bailjuvenile offenderfurther inquirystolen propertyrobberybail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arising from an order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi East, which had declined bail to the applicant. The applicant, a juvenile aged approximately 15 years, was implicated in a robbery case after allegedly receiving and using a stolen mobile phone, leading to the insertion of Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail considering his juvenile status, the complainant's statement that the applicant was not the main perpetrator, and whether his case fell within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the case warranted further inquiry, noting that the applicant was not nominated in the FIR, was a juvenile entitled to consideration under the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018, and that the complainant had no objection to the grant of bail. The court laid down the principle that post-arrest bail should be granted when the applicability of penal provisions against an accused requires further inquiry at trial, particularly in the case of juveniles where incarceration should be avoided absent exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused alleged to have only used a robbed mobile phone is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the detention of a juvenile accused warrant special consideration for the grant of bail in light of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018?
  • What is the effect of a complainant's statement stating that the accused was not the main culprit involved in the crime on a post-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib-ur-Rehman vs The State and another2024 LHC 4739, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 20, 2025 YLR 835 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-01
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsmethamphetamineforensic analysisfurther inquiryquantitative testControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the alleged recovery of 12 kilograms of items soaked in methamphetamine (Ice) from a parcel booked by the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail when the forensic report confirmed the presence of the substance but failed to provide a quantitative analysis of the actual amount of methamphetamine recovered. The Court held that the absence of a quantitative determination regarding the psychotropic substance created a significant evidentiary gap, rendering the prosecution's case against the petitioner a matter of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where a forensic report fails to quantify the exact amount of a narcotic substance, the prosecution may struggle to meet the evidentiary standards for conviction, thereby satisfying the requirement for 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a forensic report to provide a quantitative analysis of a recovered narcotic substance constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a quantitative test necessary to establish the severity of an offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can a petitioner be granted post-arrest bail if the forensic evidence is inconclusive regarding the exact quantity of the alleged contraband?
  Read full judgment →