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.

• Habib-Ur-Rehman Chughtai and another vs Kabir Hussain and others2024 YLR 2091 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-03-22
  qatl-e-amadlocus standicompetency of appealwalimitigating circumstancescriminal appealIslamic penal laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which modified sentences in a murder case. The primary legal question addressed is whether an appeal filed by a complainant, who is not a legal heir (wali) of the deceased, is competent in a case of qatl-e-amad when the legal heirs are alive. The Supreme Court held that in cases of qatl-e-amad, the right to prosecute, compound, or waive the offence is vested exclusively in the wali (heirs) of the deceased under Islamic law principles as incorporated into the penal statutes. Consequently, an appeal filed by a complainant in the presence of legal heirs is incompetent. Furthermore, regarding the convict’s appeal, the Court upheld the High Court’s reduction of the sentence, finding that mitigating circumstances, including the nature of the evidence and the role of the accused, justified the modification. The Court affirmed that courts must decide cases based on established legal principles rather than the desires of parties, emphasizing the primacy of the wali in criminal proceedings involving murder.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal filed by a complainant competent in a case of qatl-e-amad when the legal heirs of the deceased are alive?
  • Does the right to compound or waive an offence of murder vest in the complainant or the legal heirs of the victim?
  • Can a court reduce a sentence based on mitigating circumstances in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib ur Rehman vs The State etc2024 LHC 4453, 2025 MLD 714 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-03
  pre-arrest bailcriminal intimidationstatutory interpretationfurther inquirypenal code applicationbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arose from an FIR registered under Sections 506(ii) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, alleging criminal intimidation. The Court examined the contents of the FIR and the statutory provisions regarding criminal intimidation. It observed that the police had incorrectly cited 'Section 506(ii)' as a distinct offence, noting that the provision is not structured as independent parts but rather as a single section defining criminal intimidation with varying degrees of punishment based on the nature of the threat. The Court clarified that the definition of criminal intimidation requires specific intent to cause alarm or compel an act, which was not clearly established in the FIR. Finding that the petitioner's culpability required further inquiry by the trial court and noting that the petitioner had already joined the investigation, the Court held that incarceration was not justified. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed, emphasizing the need to correct misconceptions regarding the application of penal provisions for criminal intimidation.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, contain independent sub-sections or parts for criminal intimidation?
  • What is the essential intent required to constitute the offence of criminal intimidation under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Is a case involving the application of Section 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, considered a matter of further inquiry when the specific intent is not clearly established in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Nasir Siddiqui & 9 others vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2024 SHC 266, 2024 PLJ Karachi 87, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1134 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-27
  pensionary benefitsOrderly AllowanceCivil Aviation Authoritydiscriminatory treatmentArticle 25judicial reviewservice mattersvested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns retired employees of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) challenging the withdrawal of their Orderly Allowance following the amendment of Regulation 46(10) of the CAA Employees Pay and Pension Regulations 2014. The petitioners, retired Additional Directors (EG-07), argued that the withdrawal was discriminatory, as EG-08 officers continue to receive the allowance, and that the amendment was a colorable device to circumvent a prior court order. The core legal question was whether the CAA could classify EG-07 and EG-08 groups differently for pensionary benefits and whether the amendment violated Article 25 of the Constitution. The Court held that the classification between EG-07 and EG-08 was not based on intelligible differentia, as both groups share identical service conditions and allowances. The Court ruled that the CAA’s action was discriminatory and that a legislative act cannot nullify a court judgment without removing its legal basis. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the CAA to treat the petitioners at par with EG-08 officers and restore the Orderly Allowance from the date of entitlement, affirming that vested pensionary rights cannot be arbitrarily rescinded.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Civil Aviation Authority withdraw an Orderly Allowance from retired employees without a meaningful hearing?
  • Does the classification between EG-07 and EG-08 Executive Groups for the purpose of granting Orderly Allowance violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can a regulatory body nullify the effect of a court judgment by amending regulations without removing the legal basis of the judgment?
  • Is the withdrawal of a previously granted pensionary benefit permissible through a prospective amendment that impacts accrued rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmed and Another vs Muhammad Zaman and Another2024 SHC 226 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-15Read full judgment →
• Gulshana Begum vs Abdul Rasheed and 5 others2024 PLJ AJ&K 42 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-12-15Read full judgment →
• Gulshan Bibi vs Government of Gilgit-Baltistan through Chief Secretary2024 PLC (C.S.) 1048 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-11-29
  contingent paid teacherbiometric verificationdiscriminationwrit petitionservice matterGilgit-Baltistan
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a contingent paid teacher, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for her biometric verification, which the respondents contested on grounds of limitation and the assertion that the petitioner was a community teacher, not a contingent paid employee. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to biometric verification despite the respondents' claim that the process was a past and closed transaction. The Court held that the respondents failed to substantiate their claim regarding the petitioner's status, as official records confirmed her appointment as a contingent paid staff member. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner’s colleagues had been verified and that departmental authorities had explicitly recommended her for the same process. Finding the denial of verification to be discriminatory and unjustified, the Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to conduct the biometric verification. The principle established is that administrative authorities cannot arbitrarily deny employment-related verification processes to eligible employees where such benefits have been extended to similarly situated colleagues and recommended by the department.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government deny biometric verification to a contingent paid employee when similarly situated colleagues have been verified?
  • Does a departmental recommendation for biometric verification create an entitlement for the employee?
  • Can the government rely on the defense of a past and closed transaction to deny a service-related benefit when the employee's status is established by official records?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulshan Bibi and another vs Saddar Din and others2024 CLC 1105 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-23Read full judgment →
• Gulshan Ali & others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 642 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
• Gulistan Textile Mills Limited vs Additional District and Session Judge-VIII2024 YLR 16 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-25Read full judgment →
• Gulistan Spinning Mills Limited and 9 others: In the matter of vs Not2024 CLD 496 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-30Read full judgment →
• Gulab vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 1404 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-03
  constitutional petitionpolice recruitmentcriminal acquittalhonourable acquittalpublic employmentcharacter verificationservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of the Sindh Police to appoint the petitioner as a Police Constable (BPS-05) due to his prior involvement in a criminal case, despite his subsequent acquittal. The core legal question was whether a candidate, having been acquitted of criminal charges, remains ineligible for government service based on that past record. The Court allowed the petition, holding that the respondents' decision to reject the petitioner's appointment was legally unsustainable. The Court distinguished the petitioner's case from precedents involving acquittals based on the 'benefit of doubt' or technical grounds, noting that the petitioner was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove its case and witnesses exonerated him. The Court affirmed the principle that all acquittals, particularly those where the prosecution fails to establish guilt, are 'honourable' and effectively exonerate the accused. Consequently, such an acquittal does not provide a valid legal basis for the state to deny employment, and the petitioner was found entitled to his appointment.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal in a criminal case based on the failure of the prosecution to prove its case entitle a candidate to public employment?
  • Can a government department refuse to appoint a candidate solely on the basis of a past criminal case in which the candidate has been acquitted?
  • Is there a legal distinction between an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt and an acquittal based on the failure of the prosecution to prove its case regarding eligibility for public service?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Zada vs Hazrat Gul and others2024 PLD Peshawar 35 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-20Read full judgment →
• Gul Sher vs Ahmed Jan and others2024 MLD 599 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-15Read full judgment →
• Gul Shah Ali & another vs The State & another2024 PHC 240 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
• Gul Sadem Khan vs Mst. Halima and others2024 SCP 395, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-22
  guardianshipcustody of minorwelfare of minornatural guardianhizanatvisitation rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arose from a guardianship dispute where the petitioner-father sought custody of his minor sons, challenging concurrent findings of lower courts that favored the respondent-mother. The core legal question concerned whether the father's status as a natural guardian under Muhammadan Law and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, confers an absolute right to custody, or if such rights are subordinate to other considerations. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the welfare and betterment of the minor is the paramount and overriding consideration in all custody matters, superseding the father's preferential right as a natural guardian. The Court emphasized that custody arrangements are not absolute and must be determined based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, including the child's age, the proposed guardian's capacity, and the minor's own preference. The Court reaffirmed that rigid technicalities should not obstruct the minor's welfare and that factors such as the father's absence or lack of care can disentitle him from custody, regardless of his status as a natural guardian.

  Questions settled

  • Is the father's right to custody of a minor child under Muhammadan Law an absolute right?
  • Does the welfare of the minor override the natural guardianship of the father in custody disputes?
  • Can a mother retain custody of a minor child after remarriage?
  • Is poverty a valid ground for disentitling a mother from the custody of her minor children?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Nawab vs The State2024 SHC 1018 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-03
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesprohibitory clauselesser punishmentcharas recoveryfurther inquirystatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Gul Nawab seeking release in Crime No.51 of 2023 registered under Section 9(i) and 3-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amended) Act, 2022, after his bail plea was dismissed by the trial court. The core legal question involves the determination of whether the recovery of 3.600 kgs of charas falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that the statute provides dual punishments. The Sindh High Court held that where a statute provides two punishments, the lesser punishment—in this case, nine years imprisonment—must be considered at the bail stage, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The court established the key principle that in offences carrying lesser punishments outside the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception, and that pending cases or a criminal record (CRO) alone do not disentitle an accused to bail if a prima facie case for further inquiry is made out. The application was accordingly allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the lesser of two statutory punishments should be considered at the bail stage when determining the application of the prohibitory clause?
  • Does the pendency of other criminal cases or a criminal record automatically intercept the grant of bail when a prima facie case is made out?
  • Whether an offence carrying a minimum sentence of nine years falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs The State2024 PCRLJ 603 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-05
  post-arrest bailkidnappingassault on womanprohibitory clausecriminal force
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises out of an FIR registered under sections 365-B, 354, 427, and 509 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the petitioner sought post-arrest bail after being accused of attempting to forcibly abduct a female medical student at a public BRT station, stripping her hijab, snatching her valuables, and committing related offenses. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for post-arrest bail given the gravity of the allegations and the evidence connecting him to the crime. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner's acts, including attempting to kidnap the victim and stripping her hijab in public view, brought the case within the prohibitory clause of offenses carrying capital punishment or severe imprisonment, leaving no scope for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established that heinous crimes involving public outrage and moral turpitude against women do not warrant the concession of bail, consequently dismissing the petition with directions for expeditious trial completion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused involved in attempting to abduct a woman and stripping her in public is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does an offense carrying capital punishment or severe imprisonment leave scope for further inquiry at the bail stage?
  • Can bail be granted in heinous crimes that attract strong public condemnation and fall within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs Kaimuddin2024 YLR 1454 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-17Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad Indhar vs M/s Habib Bank Limited and others2024 SHC 558, 2025 PLC 30 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-23
  service disputedismissal from servicegrievance petitionlimitation periodabatement of appealgrievance noticeNational Industrial Relations Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which had dismissed the petitioner's grievance petition concerning his dismissal from service. The core legal questions involved the computation of the 90-day limitation period following the abatement of proceedings under Supreme Court precedents and whether a departmental appeal could suffice as a statutory grievance notice. The Sindh High Court held that the NIRC Full Bench misread the Supreme Court's judgment regarding limitation by miscalculating the starting point from the date of judgment rather than from the date the Federal Service Tribunal actually returned or abated the appeal, and that a departmental appeal can serve the purpose of a grievance notice. Consequently, the petition was allowed, setting aside the Full Bench order and reinstating the N.I.R.C Member's order which had reinstated the petitioner without back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the 90-day period for approaching a competent forum after the abatement of a service appeal is to be counted from the date of the Supreme Court's judgment or from the date of the actual abatement order by the tribunal?
  • Can a departmental appeal addressed to the President of a bank be construed as a valid statutory grievance notice?
  • Does a minor procedural oversight regarding a utility bill collection without any financial loss warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal from service?
  Read full judgment →
• Gui Lalai and five others vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2024 PHC 156, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 100 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Govt. of Punjab through Secretary Irrigation and Power & another vs M/s.2024 SCP 348, 2025 SCMR 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-08
  electricity dutyfiscal statute interpretationtaxing eventself-generation of electricitystatutory interpretationtax liabilitylicensee definition
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals challenged a High Court judgment regarding the liability of industrial entities to pay electricity duty on self-generated power. The core legal question was whether the 2001 amendment to the Punjab Finance Act, 1964, which expanded the definition of 'licensee' to include entities generating electricity for self-use exceeding 500 KW, effectively imposed a tax on such self-consumption. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the respondents were not liable for the duty. The Court determined that the taxing event under Section 13 of the Act requires both the consumption of energy and a 'supply' of that energy to a consumer. The Court emphasized that fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly; where two reasonable interpretations exist, the one more favorable to the taxpayer must be adopted. Since the respondents consumed the energy themselves rather than supplying it to another, the taxing event was not triggered, regardless of their status as 'licensees' under the amended definition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'licensee' under the Punjab Finance Act 1964, as amended by the Punjab Finance Ordinance 2001, automatically trigger electricity duty liability for self-generated power?
  • What constitutes the 'taxing event' for electricity duty under Section 13 of the Punjab Finance Act 1964?
  • Is the self-consumption of electricity generated by a private generator exceeding 500 KW subject to electricity duty under the Punjab Finance Act 1964?
  • How should a court interpret a fiscal statute when two reasonable interpretations of the charging provision exist?
  Read full judgment →
• Govt. of Balochistan thr. its secy. Forest and Wildlife Dept., Quetta & Another2024 SCP 146, 2024 SCMR 1155, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 938, 2024 PLJ SC 526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-15
  service lawnatural justiceright of audiencevested rightsdepartmental recruitment committeetermination of serviceshow cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal, which reinstated employees whose appointments were summarily withdrawn by the Forest and Wildlife Department. The core legal questions were whether the department could terminate the employees without a show-cause notice or opportunity for hearing, and whether the recruitment process, conducted by a Departmental Recruitment Committee, was legally flawed. The Supreme Court held that the summary withdrawal of appointment letters, after the respondents had joined duties and had their service books prepared, violated the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that a right of audience is mandatory before detrimental action is taken. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation by the respondents, noting that they had participated in a competitive process initiated by the government. The ratio established is that once a recruitment process is completed and vested rights are created, appointments cannot be withdrawn in a perfunctory manner without due process, even if the department later alleges procedural irregularities in the initial recruitment phase.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department summarily withdraw appointment orders without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity for a hearing?
  • Does the doctrine of locus poenitentiae allow for the revocation of appointment orders once a candidate has joined duty and vested rights have been created?
  • Is it legally permissible for a department to terminate employees based on alleged procedural irregularities in the recruitment process without proving fraud or misrepresentation by the employees themselves?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab, etc vs Muhammad Ahmad2024 LHC 2683 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-16
  intra court appealpolice appointmentcolor blindnessmedical fitnessminimum qualificationspolice rulesoverriding effect
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges an order of the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers directing the Police Department to consider the respondent for appointment as Sub-Inspector despite being diagnosed with color blindness. The core legal question revolves around the scope and construction of the Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013, framed under the Police Order 2002, and whether they implicitly exclude the vision standards and medical fitness criteria prescribed under Rule 12.16 of the Police Rules 1934 and the 1965 Notification. The larger bench held that the overriding effect of the Rules of 2013 is limited only to direct inconsistencies and does not render the medical fitness and vision standards under the Police Rules 1934 and 1965 Notification inapplicable. The court concluded that minimum qualifications in the schedule are bare minimum requirements and must be read in conjunction with supplemental medical requirements unless expressly inconsistent. Consequently, color blindness remains a valid ground for medical unfitness. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 are exhaustive and exclude the medical fitness requirements prescribed under Rule 12.16 of the Police Rules 1934?
  • Does color blindness constitute a valid ground for disqualification from appointment as a Sub-Inspector in the police department?
  • What is the scope of the overriding effect provided under Rule 14 of the Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 vis-a-vis the Police Rules 1934?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through Secretary Primary & Secondary2024 SCP 335, 2024 SCMR 2061, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-25
  limitation periodcondonation of delayservice appealcomputation of timeleave to appealfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Government of the Punjab against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerned whether the petition was filed within the prescribed limitation period, specifically whether the time taken by the Tribunal to administratively dispatch a copy of the judgment to the department could be excluded from the computation of the limitation period under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Supreme Court held that the petition was time-barred. The Court ruled that the limitation period for filing a petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution commences from the date of the judgment's announcement in the presence of the parties, not from the date of receipt of a copy sent by the Tribunal. The principle laid down is that administrative actions, such as the Tribunal's duty to provide copies under Rule 21 of the Punjab Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1975, do not extend the statutory limitation period, as doing so would create uncertainty and violate the fair trial rights of civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Does the administrative dispatch of a judgment copy by a Service Tribunal extend the limitation period for filing a petition for leave to appeal?
  • From what date is the limitation period for a petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution computed?
  • Can the time taken by a Tribunal to provide a copy of an order to a department be excluded under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal filed after the expiry of the 60-day limitation period, without sufficient cause for delay, liable to be dismissed?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore and another vs Zaka Ullah and others2024 SCP 410, 2025 SCMR 443, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 483, 2025 PLJ SC 158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-20
  regularization of servicecontractual employmentjudicial reviewexecutive policycabinet approvalfinance departmenttrichotomy of powersHigh Court jurisdictionzakat paid staffsupplementary grant
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Petition challenged a Lahore High Court order that directed the Chief Secretary, Punjab, to secure a supplementary grant for the regularization of 236 contract employees of the Zakat and Ushr Department. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could issue such a directive without explicit cabinet approval and finance department sanction for the posts and budget. The Court held that cabinet approval is mandatory for regularization, and the finance department's concurrence is essential for decisions affecting provincial finances or creating new posts. It found no such approvals in the record and reiterated that regularization is a policy matter falling within the executive's domain, which courts cannot usurp. Contractual employees have no vested right to regularization, and courts cannot direct it in the absence of statutory or legal backing. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and set aside the High Court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Is cabinet approval mandatory for the regularization of government employees?
  • Can a High Court direct the regularization of contractual employees without statutory or legal backing?
  • Do contractual employees have a vested right to regularization merely by efflux of time?
  • Is consultation with and concurrence of the finance department required for decisions affecting provincial finances or creating new government posts?
  • Can courts interfere with the executive's policy decisions regarding employee regularization?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Sindh through Secretary Transport and Mass Transit2024 MLD 1859 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-23Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad2024 SCP 5 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-03
  enforced disappearancesmissing personshabeas corpusfundamental rightspeaceful protestproduction ordersright to information
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from multiple constitutional petitions concerning the issue of enforced disappearances and the perceived ineffectiveness of the Commission of Enquiry on Enforced Disappearances. The petitioners expressed deep reservations regarding the Commission's performance, while the Commission's Registrar asserted that its efforts had successfully recovered numerous individuals. The Court appointed an amicus curiae to assist with the matter, particularly regarding the non-compliance with production orders issued by the Commission. The Court overruled office objections on the maintainability of certain petitions, limiting their scope strictly to missing persons. To ensure transparency and progress, the Court directed the Commission to compile and submit comprehensive data on missing persons, production orders, and its budget. Crucially, the Court directed the Federal Government to submit a written undertaking that no individual would be detained except in accordance with the law, and reaffirmed that the right to peaceful protest is a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right to information under Article 19A of the Constitution of Pakistan require the disclosure of the budget, staff, and resources of a public commission?
  • Can individuals who have already returned home be categorized as missing persons for the purpose of issuing writs of habeas corpus?
  • What is the scope of the constitutional right to peaceful protest and assembly, and what are its permissible limitations?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi2024 SCP 173, 2024 SCMR 1323, 2024 PLJ SC 878 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-08
  land acquisitioncompensationmarket valuereferee courtnotice under section 9potential valueeminent domainlocal commission report
  Summary & questions settled

  The Government of Pakistan appealed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed its appeals and maintained the Referee Court's determination of enhanced compensation for land acquired for the Pakistan Military Academy, Kakul. The primary legal questions concerned whether compensation could exceed the amount claimed in reference applications under Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether the quantum of compensation warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the restrictive provisions of Section 25 cannot be invoked unless the mandatory statutory notices under Section 9 of the Act are strictly complied with by the Collector. Since the appellant failed to prove proper service of notice under Section 9, the Referee Court was not barred from awarding compensation exceeding the landowners' initial claims. Furthermore, the Court held that fair market value and potential land value must be determined based on reliable evidence such as contemporary sale mutations. The appeals were consequently dismissed, upholding the enhanced compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Court could enhance the rate of compensation beyond the amount claimed by the respondents in the reference applications?
  • Whether the compensation awarded by the Courts below requires any interference by this Court?
  • Does the failure to comply with the mandatory notice requirements under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act prevent the application of the restrictive limits on compensation under Section 25?
  • Can the potential future value of acquired land be taken into account alongside its current market value when determining compensation?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Islamabad2024 LHC 3195, 2024 PLD Lahore 467 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Military Estate Officer Muzaffarabad, Shoukat Lines Muzaffarabad etc vs Muhammad Imtiaz and others2024 PLJ AJ&K 91 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary &2024 SCP 396, 2025 SCMR 40, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 353, 2025 PLJ SC 109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-04
  compulsory retirementdepartmental inquiryshow cause noticenatural justiceservice tribunalSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, which set aside the compulsory retirement of a school teacher and directed his posthumous reinstatement. The core legal question concerned whether the competent authority could lawfully impose a major penalty of compulsory retirement based merely on a show-cause notice without conducting a regular inquiry or recording valid reasons for dispensing with it under the applicable service rules. The Supreme Court held that allegations involving disputed facts, such as verbal abuse and misconduct, cannot be proved without a proper inquiry providing opportunities for evidence and cross-examination, and that dispensing with an inquiry requires cogent reasons and overwhelming documentary evidence. The Court laid down the principle that competent authorities must adopt a judicious approach in departmental proceedings, ensuring due process and natural justice, and that leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution requires a substantial question of law of public importance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a competent authority impose a major penalty on a government servant based solely on a show-cause notice without holding a regular inquiry?
  • What are the legal prerequisites and conditions under which a regular departmental inquiry can be legally dispensed with?
  • Whether the Supreme Court can grant leave to appeal against a service tribunal judgment in the absence of a substantial question of law of public importance?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Agriculture, Peshawar and others vs Tahir Mushtaq and others2024 SCP 318, 2024 SCMR 2069, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-12
  employee son's quotapublic employmentmerit-based recruitmentconstitutional discriminationcivil servicegood governancecompetent authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa against a High Court judgment that had directed the appointment of a respondent to a government post based on an 'employee son's quota' policy. The core legal question was whether the policy reserving government jobs for children of retiring civil servants is constitutionally permissible. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. The Court held that such quota policies are unconstitutional, as they violate the principles of non-discrimination and merit-based employment enshrined in the Constitution. The Court emphasized that public employment must be based on merit to ensure the best candidates are selected, rather than appointments being secured through filial relationships, which undermines transparency and good governance. Furthermore, the Court noted that the instructions relied upon by the respondent lacked a clear statutory basis and failed to identify the competent authority, rendering them legally ineffective. The Court advised the provincial government to withdraw all such notifications and instructions that reserve seats for children of government servants.

  Questions settled

  • Is a policy reserving government posts for the children of retiring civil servants constitutionally valid?
  • Does the reservation of government jobs based on filial relationships violate the principle of merit-based employment?
  • Can instructions issued by a government department without a clear statutory basis and identification of the competent authority be enforced?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Balochistan through Secretary Mines And Minerals2024 SCP 96, 2024 SCMR 876 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-04
  ex-post facto approvalretrospective applicationprovincial cabinetfiscal notificationmineral royaltiesconstitutional interpretationexecutive authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from petitions challenging a High Court judgment regarding the retrospective application of a notification issued by the Secretary of the Mines and Minerals Department, Government of Balochistan. The notification, issued in 2017, revised rates for mineral titles, annual rentals, and royalties under the Balochistan Mineral Rules, 2002. The core legal question was whether a notification lacking initial Cabinet approval, but subsequently receiving ex-post facto Cabinet approval, could be applied retrospectively. The Supreme Court, relying on the principles established in the Mustafa Impex case, held that executive authority, particularly regarding fiscal matters, must be exercised by the Cabinet collectively. The Court affirmed that ex-post facto approval by the Cabinet does not validate a notification retrospectively; rather, it renders the notification effective only from the date of such approval. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the High Court's decision that the notification could only have prospective effect from the date of the Cabinet's authentication, thereby rejecting the government's attempt to enforce the revised rates from the date of the original, unauthorized notification.

  Questions settled

  • Can a notification issued by a government department without prior Cabinet approval be given retrospective effect through subsequent ex-post facto Cabinet approval?
  • Does the principle of collective responsibility of the Cabinet apply to the exercise of executive authority by a Provincial Government?
  • From what date does a notification become effective if it receives ex-post facto approval from the Cabinet?
  Read full judgment →
• Golden Jubilee Cooperation Society vs Secretary Cooperative etc2024 LHC 2699, 2024 MLD 1473 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-29Read full judgment →
• Gohar Ali Khan vs Aftab Durrani and others2024 SCP 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-08
  procedural adjournmentcriminal miscellaneous applicationelection commissionsupreme court proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan pursuant to an earlier order dated 3 January 2024, involving the Election Commission of Pakistan and the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, who filed criminal miscellaneous applications. The core procedural question concerned whether the petitioner required time to respond to the voluminous applications filed by the respondents. The court decided to grant the petitioner three days time to file a written response to the contents of the said applications. The key principle established is the provision of adequate opportunity of hearing and response in procedural compliance with court directions prior to further adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party is entitled to seek time to file a written response to miscellaneous applications filed pursuant to court orders?
  • Can the court grant adjournment for submitting replies to CMAs in pending matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Global School and College of Science and Arts (Boys and Girls) vs BISE, Peshawar etc2024 PHC 380, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 34 · Peshawar High Court
  constitutional petitioneducational boardexamination hallexcess of authoritydistrict administrationgood governancepublic service delivery
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from two incidents at an examination hall of a school during Secondary School Certificate examinations conducted by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar. The core legal question was whether an Additional Assistant Commissioner from the District Administration possessed the legal authority under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Administration (Public Service Delivery & Good Governance) Act, 2020 or any other law to enter, expel students from, and seal an examination hall. The Peshawar High Court held that the Board is an autonomous body solely responsible for conducting examinations under its calendar and the relevant Board Act, and that executive magistrates lack the legal authority to interfere with the conduct of examinations or seal examination halls. The Court laid down the principle that the executive administration cannot usurp specialized statutory functions of autonomous educational boards under the guise of good governance or general public service delivery powers, and that public officials must exercise power strictly according to law.

  Questions settled

  • Does an officer of the District Administration have the legal authority under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Administration (Public Service Delivery & Good Governance) Act, 2020 to enter and seal an examination hall during board examinations?
  • Is the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education a 'Public Agency' under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Administration (Public Service Delivery & Good Governance) Act, 2020?
  • Can executive authorities interfere with the conduct of examinations which fall under the exclusive domain of an autonomous educational board?
  • Does the concept of good governance allow state officials to flout established legal frameworks and procedures?
  Read full judgment →
• Glaxo Smith Kline Pakistan Limited vs Provincial Quality Control Board2024 MLD 937 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-21Read full judgment →
• Ghzanfar Ali alias Manzoor, etc. vs The State, etc.2024 LHC 1202, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 909 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-18
  criminal appealidentification paradebenefit of doubtillegal detentionhabeas corpusweapon recoveryanti-terrorismmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 302, 353, 186, 148, 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question involved the reliability of identification parades, subsequent weapon recoveries, and the credibility of eyewitnesses when unknown accused are later nominated following habeas corpus petitions. The Lahore High Court held that an identification parade loses its efficacy and value if the accused were already nominated by witnesses prior to the parade, and that positive forensic reports of weapons recovered much later do not connect the accused to the crime scene empties if earlier recovered crime empties failed to match. The court laid down the principle that in cases involving unknown culprits subsequently named through improper channels or after illegal detention established via constitutional petitions, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an identification parade retains its evidentiary value when the accused persons are already nominated by witnesses prior to the holding of such parade?
  • Does a positive forensic report matching recovered weapons with test-fired cartridges render a conviction sustainable when the crime empties collected from the spot fail to match?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when habeas corpus petitions establish the prior illegal custody and subsequent delayed formal arrest of the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when multiple contradictions and improvements appear in the testimonies of official eyewitnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulamuddin vs The State2024 SHC 1072 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-30
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionunlawful assemblyhatchet injurydelay in FIRvicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in Crime No. 26 of 2024 registered at Police Station Sakrand under sections 302, 337-A(i), F(i), G(ii), 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for allegedly forming an unlawful assembly and inflicting hatchet injuries during a dispute over land that resulted in the murder of one person and injuries to others. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the specific attribution of injuries and the application of vicarious liability and common intention. The Sindh High Court held that the delay in lodging the FIR was plausibly explained by the shifting and treatment of the injured, and that the applicant was specifically named with a designated role of causing multiple hatchet injuries and sharing a common intention to commit murder, distinguishing the cited case-law. The court dismissed the bail application, establishing that tentative assessment does not favor bail when active participation and common intention in a capital charge are prima facie apparent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when an accused is specifically nominated in the FIR with a designated role of causing injuries in furtherance of a common intention for murder?
  • Does a delay of two days in lodging the FIR warrant post-arrest bail where the delay is plausibly explained by the medical treatment and subsequent death of the injured?
  • Whether minor or bailable injuries attributed to an accused preclude the denial of bail when the accused is also implicated through constructive liability in a murder charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulamali P. Allana vs Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse Sa & Others2024 SHC 3, 2024 PLD Sindh 112 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Umar vs The State2024 SHC 1030 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-07
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausefurther inquiryanticipatory bailcriminal procedurebail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicants, who were accused in Crime No. 158 of 2024 registered at Police Station Bin Qasim, Karachi, for offences including rioting and causing hurt. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the statutory punishment limits. The Court observed that the injuries sustained were classified under sections carrying maximum punishments not exceeding the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute. Furthermore, the Court noted that no specific roles were assigned to the individual applicants, and the case required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court allowed the application and confirmed the interim bail previously granted. The key principle laid down is that where the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and where the prosecution fails to assign specific roles to the accused, the case warrants further inquiry, thereby entitling the accused to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a case where the maximum punishment for the charged offences does not exceed the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require further inquiry?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the FIR contains only general allegations without assigning specific roles to the accused?
  • Is the trial court competent to take action against sureties under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the accused misuses the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shehzad Agha vs Khalid Khursheed and others2024 MLD 1326 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2024-04-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabir and Abdul Ghaffar vs Ali Sher Sario and Others2024 SHC 1260, 2025 YLR 373 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-31Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs The State etc2024 SCP 289, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 951, PLJ 2025 SC (Cr.C.) 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-27
  criminal reviewdeath sentenceimprisonment for lifeexpectancy of lifedeath cellmitigating circumstancedelay in executionfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a criminal review petition seeking conversion of his death sentences into imprisonment for life, having already served over 34 years in prison, including 24 years in a death cell, following his conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder. The core legal question was whether an unconscionably delayed execution and prolonged incarceration equaling or exceeding a life term can serve as a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence to imprisonment for life under the principle of expectancy of life. The Supreme Court partly allowed the petition, holding that longstanding detention in prison exceeding a life term due to systemic delays in judicial proceedings and execution constitutes an unconscionably delayed punishment and a violation of human dignity. The court laid down the principle that where a death row convict undergoes custody equal to or exceeding a full term of imprisonment for life without fault of their own, the court may exercise its discretion to commute the death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether prolonged incarceration exceeding a life term during the pendency of judicial proceedings or awaiting execution can be considered a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Does keeping a death row convict in a death cell for an unconscionably long period amount to double punishment or violate constitutional dignity?
  • Can the principle of expectancy of life be invoked when the delay in the final conclusion of a criminal case is attributable to systemic failure rather than the fault of the convict?
  Read full judgment →
• Raza Khan vs The State & another2024 SCP 252, 2024 SCMR 1697 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-23
  post-arrest bailGhag Actcustom of ghagforced marriagecriminal intimidationSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for post-arrest bail arising out of an FIR registered under Sections 4 and 5 of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Elimination of Custom of Ghag Act, 2013 read with Section 25 of the Telegraph Act, 1885. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, prima facie involved in non-bailable offences related to the custom of Ghag, was entitled to the discretionary relief of post-arrest bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that upon a tentative assessment of the material available on record and considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, including the petitioner's prima facie involvement in making Ghag and obstructing a marriage, the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a person prima facie involved in non-bailable offences under the Ghag Act entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • What constitutes the custom of Ghag under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Elimination of Custom of Ghag Act, 2013?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar through his LRs vs Province of Punjab through District2024 SCP 383, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-15
  condonation of delaylimitationsufficient causewrong legal advicecivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was filed with a delay of twenty-two days, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay under section 5. The core legal question was whether conflicting or erroneous legal advice received by a party regarding whether to file a leave petition or an appeal as of right constitutes sufficient cause for the condonation of delay under limitation laws. The Court held that wrong legal advice of this nature does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay, distinguishing the facts from precedents where litigants pursued remedies in a wrong forum. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that mistaken legal counsel regarding procedural remedies does not amount to sufficient cause to excuse a delay in filing an appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does wrong or conflicting legal advice constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under limitation laws?
  • Can the principles of section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 be invoked for appeals under section 5?
  • Does an appeal filed with a delay caused by mistaken legal counsel warrant condonation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar Chang and others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 494, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 12 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-15
  pensionary benefitsservice lawright to livelihooddelayed pensionsocio-economic justicecivil servantstatutory duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple petitions filed by retired government employees and their families seeking the release of withheld pensionary and service benefits. The core legal question addressed is whether the government or relevant statutory bodies can arbitrarily withhold pensionary benefits and whether such benefits constitute a state bounty or a vested right. The Court held that pension is a fundamental right acquired after satisfactory service, akin to salary, and is protected under the right to life. It is not a bounty to be granted at the discretion of authorities. The Court emphasized that pensionary benefits cannot be withheld or seized, even during pending proceedings, and that delays in payment cause severe socio-economic hardship. Consequently, the Court directed the Chief Secretary of Sindh to constitute a committee to resolve the outstanding pension claims and arrears within one month, ensuring compliance with Supreme Court precedents. Furthermore, the Court ordered disciplinary action against officials responsible for the lethargic and unjustified delay in releasing these entitlements, reinforcing the principle that pension is a measure of socio-economic justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is pension a state bounty or a vested right of a retired government employee?
  • Can pensionary benefits be withheld by the government during the pendency of departmental or criminal proceedings?
  • Does the right to life under the Constitution include the right to receive pensionary benefits as a source of livelihood?
  • Are market committees legally obligated to generate their own funds for the payment of pensionary benefits to their employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Saeed vs The State and another2024 PHC 360 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-16
  qatl-i-amddeath penalty commutationevidential burdenQanun-e-Shahadat Orderocular evidencecriminal appealsentencing discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the qatl-i-amd of his wife. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt and whether the death penalty was just. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through ocular testimony and corroborating medical evidence. It affirmed that an FIR is not an exhaustive document, and the non-mentioning of eye-witnesses does not inherently invalidate the prosecution's case. Regarding the evidentiary burden, the Court laid down that under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, an accused must provide an explanation for facts especially within their knowledge, such as the unnatural death of a spouse occurring inside their home, though the ultimate persuasive burden of proving guilt remains with the prosecution. Finding that the murder resulted from a sudden heat of passion rather than premeditation, the Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, emphasizing that sentencing must consider the specific surrounding circumstances of the case rather than adopting a mechanical approach.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to name eye-witnesses in an FIR automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • What is the scope of the evidential burden placed on an accused under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, when a death occurs within their home?
  • Should a court adopt a mechanical approach when determining the appropriate sentence in a murder case?
  • Does the persuasive burden of proof shift to the accused when they fail to explain a fact especially within their knowledge?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs The State2024 SCP 327, 2024 SCMR 2048 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-16
  capital punishmentcommutation of sentencemitigating circumstancesprolonged incarcerationocular testimonymedical evidencecriminal appealmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from concurrent findings of guilt and a sentence of death under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular and medical evidence, the existence of mitigating circumstances, and whether prolonged incarceration during protracted trial and appellate proceedings warrants the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life. By a majority of 2 to 1, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but altering the death sentence to imprisonment for life on two counts, with sentences to run concurrently alongside the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that extensive delays in the judicial process resulting in prolonged incarceration in a death cell, coupled with uncertainties regarding individual fatal attribution in multi-assailant sudden occurrences, can constitute mitigating circumstances justifying the commutation of capital punishment to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Does prolonged incarceration during protracted trial and appellate proceedings constitute a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence?
  • Whether the non-recovery or inconsequential recovery of a crime weapon vitiates an otherwise consistent ocular and medical account in a murder trial?
  • Can a death sentence be altered to imprisonment for life when it remains uncertain which specific assailant's firearm shot caused the fatal injury?
  • Does a delay in the execution or conclusion of judicial proceedings by itself justify the reduction of capital punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary, Islamabad and others2024 SCP 321, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-19
  election petitionrecount of votesForm-45Election Tribunalballot papers as primary evidencepresumption of correctnesscorrupt practices
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from the judgment of the Election Tribunal Balochistan, Quetta, dismissing the appellant's election petition challenging the results of the Provincial Balochistan constituency PB-14 Naseerabad-II. The core legal question concerned whether the appellant established allegations of vote tampering and manipulation of Form-45s by the winning candidate in collusion with presiding officers, and whether the recount and election results were lawfully conducted. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to establish any wrongdoing or familial ties between the winning candidate and the presiding officers during extensive cross-examination, and that ballot papers constitute the primary evidence of an election result. The Court affirmed that while a presumption of correctness attaches to statutory forms, the actual ballot papers remain the determinative factor in resolving controversies, and upheld the impugned judgment dismissing the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes primary evidence of an election result in the event of a dispute over vote counts?
  • Whether the summoning of presiding officers as court witnesses by an Election Tribunal causes any legal disadvantage to an election petitioner who gains the opportunity to cross-examine them?
  • Does a presumption of correctness attach to election forms prepared by presiding and returning officers until ballot papers are recounted?
  • Whether tampering with election results can be established without proving specific wrongdoing or interference with actual ballot papers?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool alias Mah Khan vs The State2024 YLR 1188 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-21
  murderdeath sentencelife imprisonmentocular evidencerelated witnessconfessional statementballistic reportmitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  The High Court of Balochistan considered a Criminal Jail Appeal and Murder Reference arising from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his uncle and cousin. The core issues pertained to the reliability of related ocular witnesses, the admissibility of a delayed and improperly recorded confessional statement, and the appropriate quantum of sentence. The Court held that the testimony of natural and confidence-inspiring eye-witnesses, even if related, combined with positive ballistic and medical evidence, was sufficient to establish guilt. However, the appellant's confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was excluded due to unexplained delay and failure to provide reflection time. Finding that the immediate motive or trigger for the incident remained unknown, the Court identified this as a mitigating factor, maintained the conviction, but modified the death penalty to life imprisonment, answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere close relationship of eye-witnesses to a victim render their testimony untrustworthy in a murder trial?
  • Does a Judicial Magistrate's failure to provide adequate reflection time render a confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. involuntary and inadmissible?
  • Can an unproved motive or an undisclosed immediate cause of occurrence serve as a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1778 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-10
  post-arrest bailcross-version casefurther inquiryaggressor determinationcriminal procedurebail principles
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused in a cross-version case registered under sections 324, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused is entitled to bail when both parties have lodged cross-versions of the same incident, and the identity of the aggressor remains disputed. The court held that the case falls within the ambit of "further inquiry" under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court reasoned that in cross-version cases, determining the aggressor requires a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is prohibited at the bail stage and must be reserved for the trial court after recording evidence. Furthermore, the court emphasized that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, and since the investigation was complete and no specific role was attributed to the accused, the accused was entitled to release. The court granted the bail application, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, while clarifying that these observations were tentative and should not influence the trial court's final decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a case involving cross-versions of the same incident constitutes a case of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the determination of the aggressor in a cross-version case permissible at the bail stage?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Ashfaq Hussain and 2 others2024 YLR 449 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi & another vs The State & others2024 SHC 518 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-21
  cognizance of offencecolumn-II reportinvestigating officer opinionadministrative orderplea of alibicriminal miscellaneous application
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of offences against the applicants, notwithstanding the investigating officer's report placing their names in column-II due to insufficient evidence. The core legal questions involve whether a Magistrate is bound to hear the accused before differing with an investigating officer's report and whether taking cognizance is a judicial or administrative act. The Sindh High Court held that an order passed by a Magistrate agreeing or disagreeing with a police report under Section 173 CrPC is administrative in nature, meaning the Magistrate is not legally bound to afford a hearing to the parties. Furthermore, the Magistrate is fully empowered to disagree with the police opinion and take cognizance if a prima facie case is made out on the material available. The court laid down that the investigating officer cannot usurp judicial functions by declaring accused persons innocent based on a plea of alibi while ignoring incriminating prosecution evidence, and dismissed the application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by a Magistrate agreeing or disagreeing with a police report under Section 173 CrPC is judicial or administrative in nature?
  • Is a Magistrate legally bound to hear the accused or their counsel before taking cognizance and differing with the police report?
  • Can an investigating officer declare an accused innocent and place them in column-II by disregarding prosecution evidence?
  • Under what circumstances can a Magistrate take cognizance of an offence despite a contrary opinion by the investigating officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs The State2024 MLD 1073 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-22
  rapecircumstantial evidencebenefit of the doubtlast seen evidencecapital punishmentappreciation of evidencefair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the rape of an eight-year-old girl and sentencing him to death. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence and testimonies produced by the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of reliable circumstantial evidence, that material contradictions existed among key prosecution witnesses, and that crucial evidence such as the victim's testimony was missing. The court emphasized that heinousness of an offense cannot dilute the standard of proof required in criminal cases, and that the benefit of the reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentence, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the heinous nature of an offense permit a court to relax the standard of proof required to establish the guilt of an accused person?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on circumstantial evidence in a capital case without an unbroken chain of proof?
  • What are the foundational legal principles and requirements for relying upon 'last seen together' evidence in criminal trials?
  • Whether material contradictions among close prosecution witnesses regarding the manner of the incident are sufficient to create a reasonable doubt warranting acquittal.
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Rashid Ali2024 MLD 569 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 918 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Muhammad Mushtaq, etc.2024 LHC 560 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Mst. Mah Begum and others2024 SCP 69, 2024 SCMR 795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-24
  limitation perioddeclaration of ownershipconsequential reliefjoint propertyco-ownersmutationactual denial of right
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan dismissing a civil revision filed by the appellant regarding a long-standing property dispute. The core legal question concerned whether the appellant's civil suit for declaration, possession, and permanent injunction was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the suit was indeed time-barred, as the main relief of declaration of ownership was filed fourteen years after the impugned mutation, thereby exceeding the six-year limitation period prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court laid down that when the primary relief of a declaration of ownership is time-barred, consequential reliefs, even if filed within time, cannot be sustained. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while co-owners of joint property generally enjoy protection from limitation, the creation of third-party interests and transfer of actual possession constitutes an actual denial of rights, triggering the limitation period.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil suit for declaration of ownership time-barred if filed beyond six years from the date of the impugned mutation?
  • Does the time-barring of the primary relief for declaration of ownership render consequential reliefs like possession and injunction legally unavailable?
  • When does the creation of third-party interests in joint property constitute an actual denial of rights so as to trigger the limitation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa S/o Mahboob Ali vs The State2024 SHC 762 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-15
  post-arrest bailrobberyidentification paradefurther inquiryprohibitory clauseprevious convictionsrecovery of stolen property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arising out of an FIR registered under Sections 392, 397, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Steel Town Karachi. The core legal questions involved whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was not nominated in the FIR, no identification parade was held, and the alleged recovery of the stolen vehicle required further inquiry, alongside the effect of other pending criminal cases against him. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and admitted him to post-arrest bail. The court laid down the key principles that an accused cannot be denied bail merely due to pending unproven criminal cases, that holding an identification parade is necessary when an unnamed accused is subsequently arrested, and that the grant of bail in offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule while refusal is an exception.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be refused post-arrest bail merely on the ground that other criminal cases have been registered against him without a prior conviction?
  • Is an identification parade mandatory when an accused is not nominated in the FIR and is subsequently arrested?
  • Does the mere possession of a stolen vehicle without proof of dishonest knowledge constitute an offense under Section 411 or Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does an offense carrying a maximum punishment of three years fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa S/O Abdul Karim & Another vs The State & Another2024 SHC 284 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa Mallah vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 334, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 68 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-23
  deceased quotacivil servantpublic employmentappointment rulesconstitutional protectionminority status
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought appointment against the deceased quota in the Works and Services Department, Government of Sindh, following the death of his father in 2001. The department rejected his application on the grounds that the petitioner was a minor at the time of death and that Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974, which governs such appointments, was introduced after the father's death. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to employment under the deceased quota despite the timing of his father's death and his minority status at that time. The Court held that the government is obligated to provide employment under the deceased quota in accordance with Rule 11-A and relevant Supreme Court directives. The Court emphasized that public employment is a source of livelihood and that citizens should not be discriminated against in such matters. Consequently, the Court directed the Chief Secretary to consider the petitioner's eligibility in light of the Supreme Court's verdict and the applicable rules, ensuring compliance with legal and codal formalities.

  Questions settled

  • Does the two-year limitation period for applying under the deceased quota apply to children who were minors at the time of the civil servant's death?
  • Is the government obligated to provide employment to the children of deceased civil servants under Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules 1974?
  • Can the government discriminate against applicants for public employment on grounds other than those permitted by the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs The State2024 SHC 986, 2025 MLD 703 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-23
  pre-arrest bailattempted murderprohibitory clausemala fidecriminal proceduretentative assessmentvital parts
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application concerns a request for pre-arrest bail by the applicant, Ghulam Murtaza, who is accused of attempted murder under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds, specifically malice or ulterior motives, to justify the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail, and whether the alleged offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant failed to demonstrate any mala fide intent or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant. Furthermore, the Court found that the injuries inflicted upon the victim, particularly to vital areas like the chest and breast, prima facie attracted Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a penalty of ten years and thus falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court affirmed that where prima facie evidence connects an accused to an offence, bail cannot be granted on the basis of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence punishable with ten years imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail if they fail to demonstrate malice or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant?
  • Can an accused be released on bail on the basis of further inquiry if prima facie evidence connects them to the commission of the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs The State through Assistant Director (Complaint)2024 MLD 1854 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2024-03-06
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyprohibitory clausefurther inquirycorruptiontender publicationPEPRA rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Ghulam Murtaza, a Lab Technician, who was implicated in case FIR No. 03/2024 under sections 471/468/465/420/417/409/406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 regarding allegations of failing to publish a hospital equipment tender on the PEPRA website and creating forged documents. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given that the primary responsibility rested with the DHO and co-accused persons had been exonerated or released under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the case called for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, applying the rule of consistency since co-accused had been let off and the principal liability lay elsewhere. The court laid down the principle that shifting prime liability from the responsible departmental head to junior technical staff creates serious doubts in the prosecution's case, making post-arrest bail appropriate when further investigation is unnecessary.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when prime liability rests on a principal accused who has been exonerated, thereby attracting the rule of consistency?
  • Does an offence under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 invariably bar the grant of bail under the prohibitory clause?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs Saeed ur Rehman and Others2024 SHC 60 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs Mst. Asma & Another2024 SHC 864 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza Sheikh Faheem Anwar Memon vs The Chief Minister, Sindh and others2024 SCP 293, 2024 SCMR 1757, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-09
  departmental inquiryright of cross-examinationdue processnatural justiceservice tribunalmisconductcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil petitions for leave to appeal were directed against a consolidated judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which had dismissed service appeals of prison officials—a Senior Superintendent and a Deputy Superintendent—regarding major penalties imposed after the escape of hardcore criminals from custody, while modifying and enhancing their punishments. The core legal question centered on whether departmental disciplinary proceedings and inquiries conducted without affording the accused the right to cross-examine witnesses violate due process and principles of natural justice, and whether job descriptions alone can override fatal procedural lapses in an inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the right to cross-examine witnesses is a vested, fundamental right intrinsic to due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and its denial vitiates the entire inquiry, rendering reliance solely on job descriptions legally untenable. The Court established that while acquittal in criminal proceedings does not bar departmental action for misconduct, inquiries must strictly adhere to transparency, natural justice, and due process, and service tribunals must scrutinize inquiry reports thoroughly rather than ignore procedural defects.

  Questions settled

  • Does the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses during a departmental inquiry vitiate the disciplinary proceedings?
  • Can a service tribunal overlook fatal procedural lapses in a departmental inquiry simply on the ground that the employee failed to perform duties specified in a manual?
  • Does acquittal in a criminal trial automatically bar or invalidate departmental proceedings for misconduct arising from the same incident?
  • Is the right to cross-examination considered a fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad through his legal heirs vs Zarai Tarqiati Bank Ltd. and Others2024 SHC 166, 2024 CLD 655 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mahdi Abro vs The State2022 SHC 482, 2024 YLR 50 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-27
  murderdeath sentence commutationunproved motiveocular testimonyeyewitness reliabilitycriminal appealconfirmation reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and confirmation reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Ghulam Mahdi Abro, under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to death for the murder of Oshaque Ali Abro, while acquitting the co-accused. The core legal questions involve the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, the effect of an unproved motive on the sentence of death, and the propriety of maintaining a capital sentence when mitigating circumstances exist. The Sindh High Court held that the ocular testimony, supported by prompt FIR registration and medical evidence, established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, affirming the conviction. However, because the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive and left the true genesis of the crime shrouded in mystery, the court held that these mitigating circumstances warranted exercising caution against the extreme penalty. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal regarding the conviction under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but partly allowed it by commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while awarding compensation under Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unproved nature of a motive set up by the prosecution constitutes a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness?
  • Does the mere relationship of a prosecution witness with the deceased render their testimony incredible in the absence of established enmity?
  • What is the legal effect on the sentencing of the accused when the prosecution fails to explain the true genesis or cause of the occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jaffar vs The State and others2024 MLD 276 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-10
  electricity theftcriminal appealbenefit of doubtdelay in FIRhearsay evidencenon-production of case propertyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal assails the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against the appellant under Section 462-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged electricity theft. The prosecution's case rested on an inspection by a GEPCO surveillance team, which claimed that the appellant was stealing electricity via direct wire connection. The High Court evaluated the evidence and identified critical deficiencies: an unexplained three-day delay in lodging the complaint, reliance on hearsay by the complainant who did not witness the incident, failure to seize or produce the wire used for the theft, tampering and alterations on the recovery memo, and non-production of the electricity meter or proof of ownership/occupancy of the premises. Furthermore, key recovery witnesses were not examined. The Court held that withholding material evidence and failing to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt entitled the accused to the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR regarding electricity theft weaken the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction for electricity theft be sustained when the physical wire used to commit the theft is not seized or produced in court?
  • Is a complaint based solely on hearsay statement from a surveillance team sufficient to prove an offense beyond reasonable doubt?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution withholding primary case property and failing to examine material recovery witnesses during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hyder Pirzada and others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 576 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs The State2024 YLR 1973 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-30
  criminal appealmurderchance witnessesacquittal of co-accusedabscondencebenefit of doubtcontradictions in evidencereappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant, Ghulam Hussain, was convicted and sentenced under Section 302(b), Section 324, Section 337-F(i), and Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, attempted hurt, and rioting. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given that the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses, material contradictions existed in the testimony, no independent corroboration was available, and a co-accused on the same set of evidence had already been acquitted. The Balochistan High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The court laid down the principle that the testimony of untrustworthy chance witnesses cannot form the basis of a conviction, that evidence disbelieved against one co-accused cannot be relied upon against another without independent and unimpeachable corroboration, and that mere abscondence cannot take the place of proof or cure fundamental defects in the prosecution case.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of chance witnesses be relied upon without plausible explanation of their presence at the scene?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the same set of evidence require independent corroboration to sustain the conviction of another co-accused?
  • Can mere abscondence of an accused take the place of positive proof to establish guilt?
  • What is the evidentiary value of material contradictions and dis-improvements in the statements of prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Province of Punjab and 2 others2024 YLR 573 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Gullo vs The State2024 MLD 1044 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-03-28
  narcotics possessioncriminal appealbenefit of doubtindependent witnessescontradictory evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellant under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for narcotics possession. The core legal question is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through confidence-inspiring evidence, given significant contradictions in the recovered weight of contraband, the absence of independent witnesses despite prior spy information, failure to employ modern recording techniques, and the lack of recovery of sale money or identification of any alleged purchaser. The Balochistan High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The court held that stringent punishments require strong and confidence-inspiring evidence, and that material contradictions coupled with the failure to associate independent witnesses create serious doubts, the benefit of which must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions in the weight of recovered narcotics between the FIR, murasila, and ocular testimony are fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a recovery made on prior spy information create reasonable doubt?
  • Whether the absence of sale money and non-identification of any purchaser vitiates a conviction for selling narcotics?
  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained when the prosecution evidence is not free from doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and another vs Muhammad Ali2024 MLD 1874 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2024-02-27
  bail cancellationdishonoured chequenon-bailable offencemisuse of bailcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the petitioner/complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondent by the District and Sessions Judge Gilgit in a case registered under Section 389-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 relating to a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient, exceptional grounds exist to recall or cancel the bail already granted to the accused by the lower appellate court. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the considerations for cancelling bail are distinct from those for granting bail, requiring strong and exceptional grounds such as patent illegality, misuse of the concession of bail, tampering with evidence, or absconding. Finding no such misuse or patent illegality in the impugned bail-granting order, the court dismissed the petition while directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously. The key principle laid down is that once bail is granted by a competent court, it will not be lightly interfered with or cancelled under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of egregious error, miscarriage of justice, or misuse of liberty by the accused.

  Questions settled

  • What are the distinguishing considerations for the cancellation of bail versus the initial grant of bail?
  • Whether bail once granted can be cancelled without establishing strong and exceptional grounds or misuse of concession?
  • Does the mere issuance of a dishonoured cheque under Section 389-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 necessitate the mandatory cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain alias Sudheer vs The State2024 YLR 1061 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-15
  post-arrest bailnarcotics possessioncharas recoveryfurther inquirychemical examiner reportbail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, by an applicant charged with the possession of 1480 grams of charas. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated due to political influence and highlighted a five-day delay in sending the recovered contraband to the Chemical Examiner, arguing that these factors warranted further inquiry. The State opposed the application, asserting that the offence significantly impacts society. The Court observed that the recovery was made by a police party and that, at the bail stage, it would be premature to declare the applicant innocent or to resolve the issue of the delay in sending the samples to the Chemical Examiner. Noting that the Chemical Examiner's report was positive and that the offence carries a minimum sentence of nine years, the Court held that there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was guilty. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Does a five-day delay in sending recovered narcotics to the Chemical Examiner automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can a court at the bail stage definitively resolve the issue of alleged false implication by police?
  • Is the absence of independent witnesses to a narcotics recovery sufficient grounds to grant bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain (deceased) through Legal heirs and others vs Sher2024 YLR 56 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Fareed vs Muhammad Bilal, etc2024 LHC 4961 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Dastgir Siddiqui and others vs Mst. Elizbeth and another2024 LHC 3245, 2024 CLC 1776 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Dastagir and another vs Allah Bakhsh2024 PLJ Quetta 115 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-02-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Baqir vs The State2024 SHC 852 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-02
  post-arrest bailunnatural offensefurther inquirymedical evidenceDNA reporttentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Ghulam Baqir, facing charges under Sections 377, 337-J, 342, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding an alleged unnatural offense. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail when the medical examination and DNA reports failed to substantiate the allegations of sodomy, thereby raising the issue of 'further inquiry' under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail. The Court observed that the Medico-Legal Officer’s report and the DNA analysis were negative, creating a prima facie case for further inquiry. The Court reaffirmed the principle that bail decisions must be based on tentative assessments of available material without conducting a deeper appreciation of evidence. It held that where medical and forensic evidence contradicts or fails to support the prosecution's version in a heinous offense, a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is established, warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of supporting medical and DNA evidence in an unnatural offense case constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible when deciding a post-arrest bail application?
  • Can an accused be granted bail in a case involving a heinous offense if the prosecution's primary evidence is medically inconclusive?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Bahadar vs Akbar Bacha and others2024 CLC 734 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-19Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Akhtar vs Muhammad Iqbal2024 LHC 3055 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas Soomro vs The Province of Sindh, etc.2024 SCP 79, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 569, 2024 SCMR 673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-07
  Pakistan Engineering Council Actprofessional engineerB-Tech degreepromotion and transferservice tribunallarger benchequality and non-discrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an Executive Engineer holding a B-Tech (Hons.) in Civil engineering, challenged a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal regarding his frequent transfers and postings, and raised a broader question concerning an alleged conflict between two judgments of the Supreme Court: Fida Hussain v. The Secretary, Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division (PLD 1995 SC 701) and Maula Buz Shaikh v. Chief Minister Sindh (2018 SCMR 2098 / 2019 PLC (C.S.) 282), regarding the applicability of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 to government employees and their eligibility to perform professional engineering works. During the proceedings, the Provincial Government admitted that the appellant's transfers were administratively incorrect and gave assurances of corrective action. However, noting the critical legal conundrum created by allowing promotions of unqualified or unregistered persons to posts requiring professional engineering work while exposing them to penal consequences under Section 27 of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 and potential discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution, the Court held that the matter warranted consideration by a larger bench. The Court accordingly directed that the case be placed before the Committee under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 for fixation before an appropriate bench.

  Questions settled

  • Whether any governmental policy regarding promotion can be given effect if it leads to the violation of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 or exposes the beneficiary to criminal liability?
  • Does denying an Executive Engineer (BS-18) the right to perform professional engineering works create disparate classes of employees within the same cadre, thereby violating Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Are the provisions of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 applicable only to professional engineers in private practice or do they extend to persons employed in government departments and autonomous bodies performing professional engineering work?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghufran-ul-Haq vs Anjuman Jama Masjid Khulfa-eRashideen and others2024 SHC 1392 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-23Read full judgment →
• Ghousia Rice Mills through Proprietor vs National Bank of Pakistan through Manager and 2 others2024 CLD 965 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-09-21Read full judgment →
• Ghous Bux Lashari and another vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1087 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-23
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtpolice testimonyburden of proofmurdercriminal appealunnatural death
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for the murder of the wife of one of the appellants. The prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically the testimony of police officials who claimed to have received spy information and discovered the deceased in the appellant's house. The core legal question was whether this evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must link each circumstance to form an unbroken chain connecting the accused to the offence. It further held that where a case hinges solely on police testimony, particularly in capital matters, independent corroboration is essential. The Court affirmed that the initial burden of proof rests on the prosecution; an accused's failure to explain a death occurring in their home does not shift the burden of proof if the prosecution’s primary evidence is inherently unreliable or lacks independent verification.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of police testimony in a case of circumstantial evidence without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of an accused to explain an unnatural death occurring in their house shift the burden of proof to the accused if the prosecution's case is otherwise unreliable?
  • Is it necessary for the prosecution to establish a continuous chain of circumstances in a case based on circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to associate independent witnesses in a case based on spy information render the police testimony unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghazanfar Amin vs Province of Punjab and others2024 LHC 2905 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-22Read full judgment →
• Ghani Subhan, etc vs Saadullah, etc2024 PHC 402 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-05Read full judgment →
• Getz Pharma (Pvt.) Limited and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 PTD 290 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-24Read full judgment →
• General Post Office, Islamabad & others vs Muhammad Jalal2024 SCP 358, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 1276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-18
  civil service recruitmenthereditary public employmentmedical invalidation quotaPrime Minister Assistance Packageopen advertisement requirementconstitutional equalitydiscrimination in public servicemerit-based appointmentrule 17-Ajudicial review of service rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a Peshawar High Court judgment directing the General Post Office to appoint the respondent on a contract basis under an Establishment Division Office Memorandum ('OM') reserving employment quotas for children of civil servants retired on medical grounds. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether policies, rules, and OMs granting public appointments to spouses or children of civil servants who die in service or retire on medical/invalidation grounds without open advertisement and competitive merit conform with constitutional guarantees. Reversing the High Court's order, the Supreme Court held that public sector employment cannot be made hereditary or allocated through unadvertised quotas. The Court held that such preferential hiring rules—including the Prime Minister's Assistance Package and corresponding provincial civil servant appointment rules—are manifestly discriminatory and ultra vires Articles 3, 4, 5(2), 18, 25, and 27 of the Constitution. The Court struck down these quota mechanisms, directing federal and provincial governments to withdraw them, while saving past closed transactions and special compensation packages for martyrs of law enforcement agencies and victims of terrorist acts.

  Questions settled

  • Are rules and policies providing public sector employment to children or spouses of deceased or incapacitated civil servants without open competition constitutionally valid under Articles 25 and 27?
  • Can public sector employment be granted on a hereditary basis or reserved as an exclusive dispensation for civil servants' family members?
  • Does an unadvertised appointment policy for specific categories of citizens violate the fundamental right to enter upon a lawful profession under Article 18 of the Constitution?
  • Does the Supreme Court's declaration striking down preferential employment quotas for civil servants' family members invalidate appointments already finalized prior to the judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 SCP 12, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 497, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-10
  criminal appealabatement of appealdeath of appellantspecial court convictioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by General (retired) Pervez Musharraf under section 12(3) of the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1976 against his conviction by the Special Court dated 17 December 2019. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant passed away. The core legal questions involved whether the appeal abated upon the death of the appellant under section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the consequential effects on his conviction and the rights of his legal heirs. Despite notices issued to the legal heirs through available addresses and publications in leading newspapers, no legal heirs came forward to contest the appeal or instruct counsel. The Supreme Court held that the appeal stood abated upon the death of the appellant pursuant to section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal and the subsistence of the conviction handed down by the Special Court. The key principle laid down is that a criminal appeal abates upon the death of the convict when legal heirs choose not to contest the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether on the death of the appellant the criminal appeal did not abate in terms of section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What are the consequences on the conviction and rights of legal heirs if an appellant dies during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Does an appeal abate under section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 when the legal heirs of a deceased appellant fail to contest the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Gahi @ Gada Hussain vs Shaman and others2024 SHC 1330 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-13Read full judgment →
• Fozia Mazhar vs Additional District Judge, Jhang and others2024 SCP 139, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 771, 2024 PLJ SC 489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-26
  dissolution of marriagekhulaSection 12(2) CPCFamily Courts Act 1964fraud and misrepresentationwrit jurisdictionconcurrent findings of factjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose out of a matrimonial dispute challenging the concurrent findings of three courts below, which set aside an order recalling a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of khula under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) due to misrepresentation. The petitioner had obtained a khula decree and subsequently filed a purported joint application stating the parties had reconciled, leading to the decree's recall. The respondent challenged this recall, asserting he never consented, signed, or authorized any compromise. The Supreme Court considered whether Section 12(2) C.P.C. applies to Family Court proceedings despite Section 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, and whether the High Court correctly declined to disturb concurrent factual findings under Article 199. Dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court held that Family Courts may apply the general principles of the C.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and entertain challenges grounded on fraud or misrepresentation. Furthermore, concurrent factual findings cannot be disturbed in writ jurisdiction absent gross misreading, non-reading, or absence of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the general principles of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 be invoked before a Family Court to challenge an order or decree obtained through fraud or misrepresentation despite the bar contained in Section 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below while exercising constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Is a petitioner estopped from claiming that an application for recall of a khula decree was a unilateral withdrawal when it was expressly presented as a joint compromise application?
  Read full judgment →
• First Women Bank Limited vs Hascol Petroleum Ltd2024 SHC 874, 2024 CLD 1391 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-15Read full judgment →
• Finance Department through Secretary Finance of the State of Jammu &2024 SC AJK 46 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-08-29Read full judgment →
• Fida Ullah and others vs The State2024 YLR 1823 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2024-03-25
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymurderevidentiary valuecriminal appealwitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal concerns a petition for post-arrest bail by three individuals accused of murder and attempted murder under sections 302, 324, 114, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the evidentiary material available at the pre-trial stage. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, determining that the prosecution's case against them required further inquiry. The court observed that the alleged eye-witnesses failed to support the prosecution's version in their statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as they did not witness the actual shooting but only saw the petitioners fleeing the scene. Furthermore, the injured witness failed to identify the assailants, and the recovery of weapons was deemed inconsequential due to the absence of forensic linkage. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's evidence is insufficient to prima facie connect the accused to the crime, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of weapons without forensic linkage to the crime scene constitute sufficient evidence to deny bail?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of further inquiry for the purpose of granting bail?
  • Can bail be granted when eye-witnesses cited in the FIR fail to support the prosecution's version in their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Fida Muhammad vs Shah Jehan Badshah and another2024 MLD 684 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-13Read full judgment →
• Fida Muhammad and another vs The State through Pakistan Customs2024 YLR 2483 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-16
  post-arrest bailnarcotics smugglingfurther inquirycriminal liabilitymens reacustoms exporttentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two separate post-arrest bail applications filed by accused persons in a narcotics smuggling case involving the recovery of 380 kg of heroin from a shipping container. The core legal question was whether the applicants, one being the alleged owner of the contraband and the other the owner of the export firm used for the shipment, were entitled to bail given the evidence of their respective roles. The court dismissed the bail application of the first applicant, finding sufficient material connecting him to the smuggling operation, which carried severe penalties. Conversely, the court granted post-arrest bail to the second applicant, determining that his case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as there was no evidence of his direct involvement or mens rea in the smuggling, despite his negligence in allowing his firm's credentials to be misused. The court affirmed that while negligence in business practices may violate regulatory statutes, it does not automatically establish criminal liability for narcotics smuggling, and bail is appropriate where the prosecution fails to establish a clear nexus between the accused and the criminal act.

  Questions settled

  • Does negligence in business practices, such as allowing the unauthorized use of an export firm's credentials, constitute criminal liability for narcotics smuggling?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution fails to establish a direct nexus between the accused and the commission of the offence?
  • Can the court grant bail under the principle of further inquiry when the evidence against an accused is limited to regulatory negligence rather than active participation in a crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Fida Muhammad and another vs The State and 2 others2024 YLR 1826 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-06
  post-arrest bailmethamphetamineICEnarcotics traffickingControl of Narcotic Substances Actfurther inquirymisuse of export credentials
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two criminal bail applications seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 6, 7, 8, and 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 47 kg of methamphetamine (ICE) concealed in an export consignment declared as Himalayan Pink Salt. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants—the alleged actual owner of the consignment and the proprietor of the export company whose credentials were used—have made out a case for post-arrest bail based on further inquiry and lack of direct incriminatory evidence. The court held that the prosecution amassed sufficient prima facie evidence, including digital and financial records, connecting the first applicant to the massive drug smuggling operation, thus warranting the dismissal of his bail application. However, regarding the second applicant, the court found no direct involvement, active connivance, or financial benefit, ruling his case to be one of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and granted him bail. The key principle laid down is that while large-scale narcotics trafficking disentitles an accused from bail at the tentative assessment stage, an exporter whose company credentials are misused without active connivance or criminal intent is entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused nominated as the actual owner of an export consignment containing a commercial quantity of methamphetamine is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the mere use of an export company's credentials by a third party for smuggling narcotics constitute criminal liability under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, without proof of active connivance?
  • When does a case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →