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.

• Fida Hussain vs S.S.P Tharparkar and others2024 SHC 1112 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-25
  habeas corpusillegal detentionsui jurisrecovery of detenuecriminal miscellaneous applicationpolice protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the applicant, Fida Hussain, seeking the recovery of his wife, Mst. Sain, who was allegedly detained by her parents. Pursuant to court directions, the official respondents produced the alleged detenue along with a recovery report. The core legal question concerned the legality of the alleged detention and the remedy of habeas corpus. Upon inquiry, the alleged detenue—a sui juris lady—unequivocally denied the allegations of unlawful detention, expressed her desire to reside with her father, and stated she did not wish to accompany the applicant. The Sindh High Court held that since the detenue is a sui juris person acting of her own free will and desired to go with her father, no case of illegal detention was made out. Consequently, the habeas corpus application was disposed of, with directions issued to the police to ensure the safety and protection of the detenue from any potential harassment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a habeas corpus petition lie under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an alleged detenue, being a sui juris, states she is not under illegal detention and wishes to go with her parents?
  • What is the primary purpose of Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a court set a sui juris person at liberty to go wherever she desires upon her statement expressing her free will?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan, The Province of Balochistan through the Chief Secretary Services & Department Quetta vs Karamat Ali and others2024 SCP 288, 2024 SCMR 1952, 2024 PLJ SC 863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-11
  private counselAttorney GeneralRules of BusinessAdvocate-on-RecordSupreme Court Rulescompelling reasonsintra-court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from civil miscellaneous applications seeking to restrain the Federation of Pakistan and provincial governments from engaging private counsel to plead appeals arising from challenges to provisions of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The core legal question was whether the government can engage private counsel when the Attorney General is available, and whether such engagement complies with the Rules of Business, 1973 and previous Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Court held that the applications were misconceived and dismissed them, ruling that the government may engage private counsel for compelling reasons and in the public interest, provided the procedure under Rule 14(1A) of the Rules of Business, 1973 is fulfilled, and that advocates-on-record properly instructed private counsel pursuant to the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The key principle laid down is that while the Attorney General is the primary law officer, the government is not barred from engaging private counsel in complex matters of exceptional public importance where compelling reasons exist, subject to adherence to prescribed administrative procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government and its ministries can engage private counsel to represent them in court proceedings in the presence of the Attorney General for Pakistan?
  • What constitutes compelling reasons for engaging private counsel under the Rules of Business, 1973?
  • Can an Advocate-on-Record instruct a private counsel to appear and plead in a matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980?
  • Whether the engagement of private counsel by the government violates the principles laid down in Rasheed Ahmad's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad, Afiya Shehrbano Zia and others vs Supreme Judicial Council through its Secretary, Supreme Court Building, Islamabad and others2024 SCP 101, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 698 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-21
  judicial accountabilitySupreme Judicial Councilmisconduct proceedingsabatement of proceedingsjudicial independenceconstitutional interpretationretirement of judge
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals filed against a judgment of a two-member bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which dismissed a constitutional petition in limine. The core legal question was whether proceedings initiated by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) against a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court abate upon the judge's retirement or resignation. The appellants contended that such proceedings should continue to their logical conclusion to ensure accountability and maintain public trust. The Court held that once the SJC has initiated proceedings against a judge—specifically by issuing a notice—those proceedings do not automatically abate or become infructuous upon the judge's subsequent retirement or resignation. The Court emphasized that it is the prerogative of the SJC to proceed with such matters. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional mandate for judicial accountability under Article 209 cannot be circumvented by a judge simply by resigning or retiring after the SJC has formally taken cognizance and initiated proceedings, as this would undermine the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

  Questions settled

  • Do proceedings pending before the Supreme Judicial Council abate upon the retirement or resignation of a judge?
  • Can a judge avoid accountability under Article 209 of the Constitution by resigning or retiring during the pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council?
  • Does the Supreme Judicial Council have the jurisdiction to continue an inquiry against a judge after they have retired or resigned if the proceedings were initiated while the judge was in office?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Railway/Chairman Government2024 MLD 556 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-21Read full judgment →
• Federal Revenue Alliance Employees Union through President vs Federal2024 PLC 18 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-22
  trade union registrationcivil servantsadministration of the stateworkmenintra-court appealemployer right of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal is directed against an order of the learned Judge-in-Chambers who allowed a writ petition filed by the Federal Board of Revenue (F.B.R.) against the registration of the appellant employees' union under the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) regulations. The core legal questions involved whether F.B.R. employees, being civil servants or persons in the administration of the State, are barred from forming a trade union under the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 and the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and whether an employer has a right of appeal against the registration of a trade union under the relevant laws. The court held that under the former Industrial Relations Act, 2008, workers in the administration of the State other than Railway and Pakistan Post workers were barred, rendering the 2010 registration unsustainable at that time. However, under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, the deletion of specific departmental restrictions allows workmen in the administration of the State to form trade unions, provided they do not fall within the definition of employer. The court dismissed the appeal while clarifying that the union may apply afresh for registration under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employer has a right of appeal against an order of the Chairman N.I.R.C. directing the registration of a trade union under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Do the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 apply to workmen employed in the administration of the State?
  • Are employees of the Federal Board of Revenue barred from forming and registering a trade union?
  • Does the definition of a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 include persons who are workers or workmen?
  Read full judgment →
• Federal Public Service Commission through Chairman, Islamabad and another vs Shiraz Manzoor and others2024 PLC (C.S) 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-24
  service tribunalpromotionvested rightrecruitment policyeligibility criteriacivil servantsFederal Public Service Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  The Federal Public Service Commission sought leave against a consolidated judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby respondents' appeals were allowed, and the competent authority was directed to modify the Rules of 2009 to mandate exclusive appointment to the post of Reader through promotion from Assistants. The core legal question was whether the framing of the SRO of 2009, prescribing 40% promotion and 60% initial appointment for the post of Reader, violated the terms and conditions of service or infringed any vested right of the respondents, given that no rules governed the post prior to 2009. The Supreme Court held that civil servants have no vested right in promotion or in the continuation of existing eligibility criteria, and the competent authority is fully empowered to formulate recruitment policies in the interest of efficiency without judicial interference unless vested rights are violated. The Tribunal had transgressed its jurisdiction by substituting its own policy. The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's judgment set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether rules prescribing the mode of appointment to a post for which no previous rules existed infringe any vested right of existing employees?
  • Does a civil servant have a vested right in promotion or in the non-alteration of eligibility criteria for promotion?
  • Can a service tribunal substitute its own recruitment policy for the one formulated by the competent authority?
  • When can a court or tribunal interfere with the formulation and creation of a recruitment policy by the competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Federal Government Employees Housing Authority through its Director2024 SCP 386, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 11 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-20
  suo motu jurisdictionjudicial overreachright to be hearddue processwrit jurisdictionhousing scheme allotmentaudi alteram partemseparation of powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions filed against a High Court judgment and interlocutory order regarding housing schemes developed by the Federal Government Employees Housing Authority (FGEHA). The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, could exercise suo motu powers to declare a government policy unconstitutional when that policy was not challenged by any party, and whether it could issue directions without providing a fair hearing to affected parties. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its constitutional authority by deciding issues beyond the scope of the pleadings and prayers. It ruled that High Courts do not possess suo motu jurisdiction and that judicial review must be confined to the specific grievances raised. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the principle of audi alteram partem and the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, necessitate that affected parties be heard before any adverse order is passed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order were set aside, and the cases were remanded for fresh adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise suo motu jurisdiction to declare a government policy unconstitutional when that policy was not challenged by the parties?
  • Does the principle of audi alteram partem require that affected parties be given a notice and an opportunity to be heard before a court passes an order affecting their rights?
  • Is a High Court permitted to grant relief that was not specifically prayed for in the writ petition?
  • Does the constitutional scheme of Pakistan confer suo motu powers upon the High Courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazul Hussain and others vs Mukhtiar Ahmed and others2024 SHC 604 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Fazli Akbar Khan and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through District Collector, Mardan and others2024 SCP 322, 2024 SCMR 2071 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-25
  land acquisitionreference petitionlimitationlachescompensationReferee Courtconstitutional petitionjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning land acquisition proceedings. The petitioners' land was acquired for a public purpose under an award dated October 11, 2010. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the petitioners filed a reference petition under sections 18, 30, 31, and 34 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa-Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector rejected the reference under section 18 as being barred by limitation while referring it under sections 30 and 31. The Referee Court subsequently dismissed the petition as not maintainable. Instead of challenging the Referee Court's order, the petitioners impugned the Collector's order before the High Court after a delay of 33 months. The High Court dismissed the writ petition as time-barred and hit by laches. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's findings, holding that the reference under section 18 was clearly time-barred and that the constitutional petition challenging the Collector's order suffered from unexplained and inordinate delay, thus attracting the doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court consequently refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a reference petition filed under section 18 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa-Land Acquisition Act, 1894 beyond the prescribed statutory period is maintainable?
  • Can a constitutional petition challenging an order of the Land Acquisition Collector be entertained when filed after an inordinate delay of 33 months?
  • What is the extent of jurisdiction exercised by a Referee Court when a matter is referred to it under sections 30 and 31 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa-Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Rehman vs Rehman Gul2024 PHC 142 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-12Read full judgment →
• Fazal Rabi vs The State and another2024 PHC 394 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-12-09Read full judgment →
• Fazal Qadeer vs The Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication) Quetta2024 PTD (Trib.) 94 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2023-04-10Read full judgment →
• Fazal Noman Sabir vs Haji Abdul Khaliq Awan and 2 others2024 PCr. LJ 2072 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-22
  Illegal Dispossession Actabatement of proceedingsrestoration of possessiondeath of accusedproclaimed offendertrial in absentiaproperty rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition under Section 435 read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad (East), which dismissed an application for the abatement of entire proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, following the death of one accused and the proclamation of others as offenders. The core legal question was whether a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 abates entirely upon the death of an accused or the absconsion of others, particularly regarding property possession and restoration. The Islamabad High Court held that while penal proceedings abate against a deceased accused, the complaint survives to the extent of controlling or occupying property without lawful authority under Section 3 and the restoration of possession under Sections 7 and 8 to the lawful owner or occupier, or any person claiming through the accused. The court laid down that the nature of the cause of action determines the survivability of proceedings in immovable property disputes, and the special in-built mechanisms of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 override general abatement rules where property restoration is sought.

  Questions settled

  • Does a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 completely abate upon the death of one of the accused persons?
  • Can proceedings for the restoration of property continue against a person claiming through the accused under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding abatement applicable to special proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Can a trial court record evidence in the absence of absconding accused persons who have been declared proclaimed offenders?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Muhammad Khan vs The State2024 PHC 5 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-11Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz-ul-Hassan Anwar vs Mst. Shehla Khalid etc.2024 LHC 1493, 2024 PLJ Lahore 601, 2025 CLC 960 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-21Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Ali Khan son of Hakeem Dad Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Law and Justice Division, Islamabad2024 F.S.C 6, 2024 PLD Federal Shariat Court 33 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-04-23Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Ali and 9 others vs The State2024 YLR 1562 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-11
  pre-arrest bailconfirmation of baildelay in FIRtentative assessmentmisuse of bail concessioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail for applicants booked in an FIR involving offenses under sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 365, 395, and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the confirmation of their pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and the prosecution's opposition. The Court held that the unexplained twenty-day delay in lodging the FIR and inconsistencies regarding the presence of other named individuals created sufficient doubt to warrant further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court observed that there was no evidence of the applicants misusing the concession of bail, tampering with evidence, or absconding. Applying principles established by the Supreme Court, the Court held that in the absence of evidence showing misuse of liberty or interference with the investigation, the interim bail should be confirmed. The key principle laid down is that at the pre-arrest bail stage, the court must conduct a tentative assessment of evidence, and where no misuse of bail is demonstrated, interim bail should be confirmed pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR provide sufficient grounds for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • What are the specific conditions under which a court may cancel or recall a previously granted bail?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permitted at the stage of deciding a pre-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Faysal Bank Limited vs M/s Dynasel Limited and others2024 LHC 2628, 2025 PLD Lahore 263, 2025 CLD 369 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• Faysal Bank Limited vs Masood Asghar & another2024 SHC 92, 2024 CLD 744 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-31Read full judgment →
• Fayaz alias Fayaz Hussain and others vs The State2024 SHC 550, 2024 YLR 2586 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-29
  criminal appealanti-terrorismmurdereyewitness testimonyballistic reportcommon objectjurisdictioninquest report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for murder, attempt to murder, assault on law enforcement, and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and the Sindh Arms Act 2013. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of eyewitness testimony, the legal effect of minor discrepancies and contradictions in medical and oral evidence, the validity of recoveries made from a common household, and the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that minor discrepancies do not undermine a consistent and confidence-inspiring eyewitness account supported by medical evidence, positive ballistic reports, and recoveries. The court laid down the principle that preliminary investigative formalities such as inquest reports and post-mortems can legally be completed prior to the formal registration of an FIR pursuant to Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Rule 25.31 of the Police Rules 1934, and that the prosecution is not bound to examine every potential witness when the guilt is established through reliable evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can preliminary investigation steps such as inquest reports and post-mortem examinations be legally conducted prior to the formal registration of an FIR?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine every potential eyewitness render the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Whether recovery of crime weapons from a single room or trunk shared by co-accused family members invalidates the evidentiary value of such recovery?
  • Does a minor inconsistency in describing the location of injuries on an injured witness's body discredit their overall testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Fayaz & others vs Muhammad Haneef2024 PHC 294, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-29Read full judgment →
• Fawad Ahmed vs National Accountability Bureau and 02 others.2024 IHC 50, 2024 MLD 1207 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-01
  post-arrest bailNational Accountability Bureaumisuse of authorityfurther inquirystatutory exemptiondocumentary evidenceliberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed before the Islamabad High Court under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with Section 9(b) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999, arising out of a NAB inquiry regarding the alleged misuse of authority and financial irregularities in the approval of a dual carriageway project. The core legal question centered on whether reasonable grounds existed to believe the accused committed the alleged offences, and whether the project's approval by competent bodies exempted the transaction under statutory amendments. The court held that since the project was duly approved by the CDWP and ECNEC, the matter fell within the exclusionary provisions of Section 4(2)(b) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999, and that the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, laying down the principle that liberty should not be curtailed as punishment where the evidence is documentary, already in the prosecution's possession, and the case calls for tentative assessment in favor of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether decisions of bodies like CDWP and ECNEC exclude the application of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 absent monetary gain to the public office holder?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the case against the accused is based on documentary evidence already secured by the prosecution?
  • Is bail to be withheld as a punishment when there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty of a non-bailable offence?
  • Does the absence of official co-accused in a NAB inquiry entitle the principal accused to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Fauji Fresh and Freeze Ltd vs Commissioner Inland Revenue & others2024 LHC 158, 2024 PTD 1068 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-17Read full judgment →
• Fauji Fertilizer Company Limited and Fauji Fertilizer Bin Qasim Limited vs ecurity and Exchange Commission of Pakistan and another2024 LHC 5533, 2025 CLD 343 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-18Read full judgment →
• Fatimah Quaid vs The Principal, S.M. Law College, Karachi and 3 others2024 MLD 1301 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-07Read full judgment →
• Fateh Textile Mills Ltd. & others vs Allied Bank of Pakistan & another2024 SHC 94, 2024 CLD 604 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-31Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 3 others2024 PLC (C.S.) 1222 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-16
  maintainabilityconstitutional petitionnon-statutory rulesNADRA employeesdismissal from servicedepartmental appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a batch of writ petitions filed by employees of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) who challenged their dismissal from service following disciplinary proceedings under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The core legal question was whether writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan are maintainable by NADRA employees whose terms and conditions are governed by non-statutory service regulations. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petitions as not maintainable, holding that the NADRA Employees (Service) Regulations, 2002 and the rules adopted thereunder are non-statutory in nature, meaning employees cannot enforce them through constitutional writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the disciplinary action taken under non-statutory service rules?
  • Are the NADRA Employees (Service) Regulations, 2002 statutory or non-statutory in nature?
  • Does the mere adoption of government statutory rules by reference lend a statutory cover to the internal service rules of an authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Fatah Ullah Khan vs Jamil Ahmed and others2024 YLR 2099 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2023-10-27Read full judgment →
• Farzand Khan, etc vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Secretary Home & Tribal Affairs Department, etc2024 PHC 416 · Peshawar High Court
  deputationrepatriationcivil servantvested rightservice exigencyadministrative discretionwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two writ petitions challenging the administrative repatriation of police constables to their parent department before the expiration of their designated deputation periods at the Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE). The core legal question is whether a civil servant on deputation possesses a vested right to serve the full stipulated duration of their deputation, thereby rendering premature repatriation unlawful. The Court held that deputation is a temporary administrative arrangement driven by the exigencies of service and the operational needs of the borrowing department, rather than the personal convenience of the employee. Consequently, the Court ruled that a deputationist holds no vested right to remain in a borrowing department for any specific period and may be repatriated at any time by the competent authority. The Court affirmed that such repatriation does not require prior notice, nor does it violate principles of natural justice, as the decision rests entirely within the administrative discretion of the departments involved. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petitions, finding no infringement of any fundamental or legal right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant on deputation have a vested right to complete the full stipulated period of their deputation?
  • Can a borrowing department repatriate a deputationist to their parent department before the expiry of the deputation period?
  • Is the prior issuance of a show-cause notice required before the repatriation of a civil servant from a deputation post?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under Article 199 to interfere with the administrative decision to repatriate a deputationist?
  Read full judgment →
• Furqan Ahmed Shaikh vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 436 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-17Read full judgment →
• Faryal Saleem and others vs Nayatel (Pvt) Ltd.2024 IHC 7, 2024 PLD Islamabad 246 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-14Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Shahzad vs Maqbool Hussain Awan2024 LHC 1879, 2025 PLJ Lahore 184 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-30Read full judgment →
• Farooque s/o Shaban Jamali vs The State2024 SHC 1078, 2025 MLD 418 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-11
  qatl-i-amdocular evidenceinterested witnesscriminal appealforensic evidenceappreciation of evidencemurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of the complainant's brother. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through ocular evidence, despite the defense's claims of interested witnesses, minor contradictions, and disputed recovery of the weapon. The Court held that the conviction was sound, noting that the ocular account of three eye-witnesses was consistent, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by medical evidence and positive Forensic Science Laboratory reports regarding the recovered weapon. The Court affirmed that minor discrepancies in testimony do not invalidate the prosecution's case and that the rule of corroboration is one of abundant caution, not a mandatory requirement when direct evidence is reliable. Furthermore, the Court clarified that mere relationship between witnesses and the deceased does not render them 'interested' witnesses absent a proven motive to falsely implicate the accused. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the testimony of a single eye-witness if that witness is found to be reliable and confidence-inspiring?
  • Does a familial relationship between eye-witnesses and the deceased automatically render them 'interested' witnesses whose testimony must be discarded?
  • Are minor contradictions in prosecution evidence sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused when the ocular account is otherwise corroborated by medical and forensic evidence?
  • Is the rule of corroboration a mandatory requirement for conviction in criminal cases or a rule of abundant caution?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooq Ahmed vs Secretary Balochistan Provincial Assembly, Quetta, etc2024 SCP 304, 2024 SCMR 2034, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1437 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-06
  public appointmentconflict of interestcivil servant statusnepotismservice tribunal jurisdictionrecruitment rules
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the withdrawal of his appointment as Deputy Secretary (BPS-18) in the Balochistan Provincial Assembly Secretariat. He had simultaneously invoked the jurisdictions of the High Court and the Balochistan Service Tribunal, both of which dismissed his claims on the merits. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the petitioner's appointment was validly made and whether the employees of the Assembly Secretariat hold the status of civil servants. The Court held that the officers and employees of the Assembly Secretariat belong to a distinct service under the Balochistan Provincial Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment) Rules, 2009, and are not civil servants under the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974. On the merits, the Court found that the recruitment process was tailored to benefit the petitioner, whose father was the Secretary of the Secretariat, in grave violation of the statutory promotion-based recruitment rules and the principle of conflict of interest. The Court affirmed that public appointments must strictly adhere to statutory rules, transparency, and fairness, dismissing the petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Do the officers and employees of the Balochistan Provincial Assembly Secretariat hold the status of civil servants under the Balochistan Civil Servants Act 1974?
  • Can a public appointment be sustained if it is made in violation of the prescribed statutory mode of recruitment and rules?
  • What is the legal effect of a conflict of interest where a public official participates in or influences the recruitment process of their own family member?
  Read full judgment →
• Farida Khanum vs Abdul Qayyum Baig (deceased) through his legal heirs, etc2024 LHC 6002 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Farhat Rashid vs Saba Farhat Rashid2024 SHC 652, 2025 CLC 54 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-30Read full judgment →
• Farhan Yasir Danwar vs Federation of Pakistan2024 SHC 454, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1384 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-13
  Section Officers Promotional ExaminationFederal Public Service CommissionDepartmental Permission Certificaterecruitment processpast and closed transactioneligibility criteriacivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged the Federal Public Service Commission's (FPSC) rejection of his candidature for the Section Officers Promotional Examination (SOPE) 2017. The core legal question was whether the appellant was eligible to participate and whether the FPSC’s decision was discriminatory or legally flawed. The Court held that the appeal was meritless, noting that the appellant failed to submit the mandatory Departmental Permission Certificate and appointment orders required to establish his eligibility under the SOPE Rules 2015. Furthermore, the Court observed that the recruitment process had already concluded, and successful candidates had been appointed and trained. Consequently, the matter was deemed a "past and closed transaction," and the Court refused to disrupt the finalized appointments, particularly as the successful candidates were not impleaded. The key principle laid down is that administrative recruitment processes, once finalized and acted upon, cannot be reopened to accommodate a candidate who failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, as doing so would disrupt the established administrative order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate challenge the rejection of their candidature after the recruitment process has concluded and successful candidates have been appointed?
  • Is the failure to submit a Departmental Permission Certificate a valid ground for the Federal Public Service Commission to reject a candidate's application?
  • Does the Federal Public Service Commission have the authority to determine the eligibility of a candidate based on the department of their employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Faraz Iqbal Jamil and another vs The Federation of Pakistan and 04 others2024 LHC 1990, 2025 PLD Lahore 352 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-25Read full judgment →
• Faqir ur Rehman vs Hussain Ahmad2024 PHC 74 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-28
  criminal appealappeal against acquittalmurderburn injuriesburden of proofmedical evidencepresumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the complainant under Section 417(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court in a case relating to the unnatural death of his wife due to burn injuries, registered under Sections 302 and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding allegations of burning through kerosene oil, and whether the trial court's acquittal order warranted interference. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the accused and the crime, that the accused had discharged the burden under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 by immediately taking the victim to hospitals and reporting the incident, and that medical discrepancies regarding the cause of burns could not override the lack of incriminating evidence. The key principle laid down is that an order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, and appellate courts will not interfere unless the trial court's assessment is perverse or arbitrary.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal without strong and exceptional grounds?
  • How does the initial presumption of innocence get affected by an acquittal recorded by a trial court?
  • Can a belated and unsubstantiated medical report regarding the cause of burn injuries override the lack of direct incriminating evidence?
  • Did the accused successfully discharge the burden of explanation under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Syed Anwar ud Din decd. thr. LRs Muhammad Azeem Sheikh vs Syed2024 SCP 367, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 31 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-22
  regular second appealconcurrent findingsunsoundness of mindbona fide purchaserburden of prooffraudulent transfercivil procedureleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the High Court, which had affirmed concurrent findings of two competent courts and dismissed regular second appeals filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The underlying litigation involved a suit for declaration, partition, and possession filed by the son as next friend on behalf of his mother, who suffered from chronic mental ailments and unsoundness of mind. The plaintiff had been deprived of her inherited agricultural land and residential property through fraudulent transactions orchestrated by one of her siblings, who had held public office. The trial court and lower appellate courts decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the defendants failed to prove the validity of the transactions or establish that a subsequent vendee was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The Supreme Court evaluated whether concurrent findings of fact warrant interference in second appeal and examined the burden of proof required to claim protection as a bona fide purchaser. The Court held that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 unless vitiated by misreading or non-reading of evidence, and that a subsequent vendee asserting bona fides bears the initial onus to prove payment of consideration, good faith, and reasonable inquiry. The Supreme Court accordingly declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact rendered by two lower courts can be interfered with under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908?
  • What is the nature of the initial onus that a subsequent vendee must discharge to claim the status of a bona fide purchaser under section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Can the question of a person's unsoundness of mind be adjudicated by a civil court in a regular suit independently of proceedings under the Lunacy Act, 1912?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqeer Mumtaz Ali Abro vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 406, 2024 PLD Sindh 446 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-09Read full judgment →
• Faqeer Muhammad vs The State2024 PLD Sindh 170 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-11
  Anti-Terrorism Court jurisdictiondefinition of terrorismpersonal vs private motivecriminal revisionrape and murdertransfer of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Revision Application challenges an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, which dismissed an application contesting its jurisdiction to try a case involving the rape and murder of a minor girl. The core legal question was whether the brutal nature of the offence, which caused public shock, qualifies as 'terrorism' under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, thereby vesting jurisdiction in the Anti-Terrorism Court. The Court held that while the offence was grave and brutal, the motivation behind it was personal and private, rather than an attempt to destabilize the society at large for political, religious, or ideological causes. Relying on the principle established in Ghulam Hussain v. The State (PLD 2020 SC 61), the Court ruled that the mere gravity or brutality of an offence does not constitute terrorism. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the Anti-Terrorism Court lacked jurisdiction, and directed the transfer of the case to a court of competent jurisdiction for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere gravity or brutal nature of an offence qualify it as terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What is the essential requirement for an offence to be classified as terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Does an Anti-Terrorism Court have jurisdiction to try a case of rape and murder where the motivation is personal and private?
  Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher, etc. vs Hashmat Bibi, etc.2024 LHC 755, 2024 PLJ Lahore 322, 2024 PLJ Lahore 262, PLD 2025 Lahore · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-21Read full judgment →
• Fakhar Iqbal Shah, Siffat ul Hassan Shah vs The State, etc, The State, etc2024 LHC 4351, 2024 LHC 4364, 2025 PCRLJ 802 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-01
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtdefective investigationmedical evidence contradictionmotiveacquittalweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision challenge the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular, medical, and circumstantial evidence, and whether the alleged motive and weapon recovery were established. The Lahore High Court held that numerous material contradictions between the ocular account and the site plan, defective police investigation, unexplained delays, doubtful medical evidence, unproved motive, and the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence created insurmountable doubts in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the revision for enhancement of sentence, laying down the principle that the benefit of any doubt in the prosecution case must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, and that conviction must rest on unimpeachable and trustworthy evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions between the ocular account and the site plan are sufficient to create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the same set of evidence where co-accused have already been acquitted by the trial court?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when the weapon is not properly identified during trial or matched with the crime empties?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending blood-stained earth to the forensic laboratory vitiate the prosecution's reliance on it?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiza Basir Syed vs Customs Appellate Tribunal and others2024 LHC 3986, 2025 PTD 1 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-11Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs Province of Balochistan through Chief Secretary, Civil2024 PLC (C.S.) 482 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-22
  up-gradation of postterms and conditions of servicetransfer and postingconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunalbar of jurisdictionlaches
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant holding the post of Deputy Director (B-18), sought the up-gradation of his post to Director (B-19) based on recommendations of an Up-gradation Committee, and challenged the transfer and posting of respondent No. 5 to a non-cadre post. The core legal questions were whether an individual civil servant can claim up-gradation of a post as a matter of right without a general policy, and whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a challenge regarding the transfer and posting of a civil servant in view of the constitutional bar under Article 212. The Balochistan High Court held that up-gradation is personal to isolated posts to address stagnation under a general policy across the board and cannot be claimed to benefit a particular individual, and that matters relating to the transfer and posting of civil servants fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim the up-gradation of a post as a matter of right for personal benefit?
  • Whether up-gradation of a post is restricted to restructuring and addressing stagnation across the board rather than benefiting a particular individual?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain petitions relating to the transfer and posting of civil servants?
  • Whether matters regarding the transfer and posting of a civil servant fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad and others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Revenue Department and others2024 MLD 644 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-02Read full judgment →
• Faiyaz Khan and another vs The State2024 YLR 905 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-24
  police encounterchain of custodymalkhana entryanti-terrorism appealbenefit of doubtweapon recoverycontradictions in evidencecriminal acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under various provisions including sections 324 and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act 2013, and section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 following an alleged police encounter. The core legal question involves determining whether the prosecution proved its case regarding the police encounter and recoveries beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in the face of material contradictions in witness testimonies, missing malkhana entries, and a broken chain of custody for forensic evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and transmission of recovered weapons, and that material contradictions regarding the sequence of events and recovery of empties rendered the police encounter doubtful. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt through unimpeachable evidence, including establishing a secure chain of custody for recovered items, and that an accused is entitled to acquittal upon the prosecution's failure to meet this standard.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure by the prosecution to produce malkhana entries and establish the safe transmission of recovered weapons to the forensic laboratory vitiate the chain of custody?
  • Whether material contradictions between the testimonies of eyewitnesses and police officials regarding the sequence of events and recovery of empties can make a police encounter doubtful?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt irrespective of any defense raised by the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisalabad Electric Supply Company Ltd vs The Chairman Punjab Revenue2024 LHC 4283, 2024 PTD 1469 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-09Read full judgment →
• Faisal Mustafa vs Iqbal Ahmed & Others2024 SHC 84 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-29
  Ex-Officio Justice of PeaceSection 22-A Cr.P.C.Jurisdiction of Justice of PeaceWatercourse disputeAdministrative powersCriminal procedureEncroachment removal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which directed the Irrigation Department to remove barricades from a watercourse. The core legal question was whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace possesses the jurisdiction under Section 22-A and Section 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to issue such directions, particularly when the underlying dispute involves civil rights and is already sub-judice. The High Court held that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction. The Court clarified that the powers of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace are administrative and ministerial, strictly limited to directing the registration of FIRs, the transfer of investigations, or addressing police neglect. The Justice of Peace cannot assume the role of a civil court, adjudicate upon water rights, or embark upon detailed inquiries into the veracity of allegations. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing that the Justice of Peace must operate within the specific statutory framework and cannot usurp the functions of other judicial or executive authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace have the jurisdiction under Section 22-A and Section 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order the removal of encroachments from a watercourse?
  • Is the power of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 judicial or administrative in nature?
  • Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace adjudicate upon civil disputes regarding water rights while exercising powers under Section 22-A and Section 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Hussain vs The State2024 PHC 410 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-16Read full judgment →
• Faisal Ali vs District Police Officer, Gujrat and another2024 SCP 385, 2025 SCMR 92, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-23
  service tribunaldepartmental inquiryshow cause noticemisconductdue processnatural justiceproportionality testpolice constable
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioner police constable's appeal against his dismissal from service. The petitioner was initially issued show cause notices for absence from duty, but was ultimately dismissed on the ground of conviction in a criminal case through an ex-parte inquiry. The core legal question was whether a departmental authority can penalize an employee for misconduct or grounds never mentioned in the show cause notice, and whether an ex-parte regular inquiry conducted without associating the accused violates due process. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that departmental proceedings and resultant penalties must strictly confine themselves to the allegations communicated in the show cause notice, and an employee cannot be penalized on extraneous grounds without a fair opportunity of defense. The Court laid down that a show cause notice forms the essential foundation of disciplinary proceedings, and traveling beyond its precinct violates natural justice; additionally, the Court elucidated the distinct nature of discreet, fact-finding, and regular inquiries, and discussed the principles of proportionality and reasonableness in awarding departmental punishments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether departmental disciplinary proceedings can travel beyond the allegations contained in the show cause notice?
  • Is it mandatory to associate the accused employee in a regular departmental inquiry?
  • What is the distinction between discreet, fact-finding, and regular inquiries in service matters?
  • When can a court or tribunal interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded by a departmental authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Faique Ali s/o Muhammad Ali Mangi vs Lyari Development Authority2024 SHC 1044, 2024 PLJ Karachi 171, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 328 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-11Read full judgment →
• Faheem Ullah vs The State through P.G. Punjab and another2024 SCMR 43 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-20
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausecriminal proceduremala fide implicationenmitybail concession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against the Peshawar High Court's orders declining post-arrest bail to the petitioners in separate criminal cases. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail in offences that fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court observed that in both cases, the offences charged under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were outside the prohibitory clause. Furthermore, the Court noted the existence of prior enmity between the parties, arising from a related murder case in which the petitioners' relatives were involved, suggesting potential mala fide or ulterior motives for the petitioners' implication. Given that the petitioners had been incarcerated since June 2023 without the conclusion of the trial, the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail. The petitions were converted into appeals and allowed, granting bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

  Questions settled

  • Are offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally bailable?
  • Does the existence of prior enmity between parties constitute a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Can the prolonged incarceration of an accused without the conclusion of the trial justify the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Faheem Khan vs Muhammad Moin Aamer Pirzada & others2024 SHC 1040, 2025 PLJ Karachi 18 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-10Read full judgment →
• Faheem Anwar Memon and others vs The State through Prosecutor2024 SCP 215, 2024 SCMR 1536 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-11
  prisoner escapecriminal negligenceprison officialscommon intentionanti-terrorismappraisal of evidencecriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises out of convictions and sentences handed down following the escape of two under-trial prisoners (UTPs) belonging to a proscribed organization from the judicial complex adjacent to the Central Prison, Karachi. The core legal question revolves around whether high-ranking prison officials and subordinate staff possessed the requisite common intention or exhibited proven criminal negligence leading to the escape under relevant provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Supreme Court held that while subordinate police constables and escorts directly facilitated the escape through active connivance and false record-keeping, the prosecution failed to provide definite and concrete evidence of criminal negligence or connivance against the prison superintendent, deputy superintendent, and assistant superintendents. Consequently, the petitions of the subordinate staff were dismissed, whereas leave was granted and appeals allowed for the senior prison officials, setting aside their convictions. The key principle laid down is that criminal liability under penal statutes for public servants requires definite and concrete evidence of negligence or active connivance, as opposed to mere administrative lapses or presumptions applicable in departmental proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether definite and concrete evidence is required to prove criminal negligence against a public servant under penal provisions relating to the escape of a prisoner?
  • Can senior prison management be held criminally liable for a prisoner escape without proof of active connivance or direct sharing of common intention?
  • Whether presumptions or surrounding circumstances sufficient for departmental disciplinary action can substitute for strict proof in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Faheem Afsar vs Muhammad Khursheed and another2024 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 148 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-10-14
  recall of witnessescross-examinationwakalatnamatechnical irregularityfair trialdiscretionary powerscriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This direct appeal arises from an order of the High Court dismissing the appellant's revision petition against the trial court's refusal to recall prosecution witnesses for cross-examination. The appellant, facing trial under Section 320 of the Azad Penal Code, sought to recall witnesses on the ground that his previous counsel was not authorized and he was unrepresented during their cross-examination. The core legal question concerns whether an accused can recall prosecution witnesses for cross-examination based on an alleged lack of authorization in the counsel's vakalatnama. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the trial court's discretionary power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be exercised for the just decision of the case, and that a defect or omission in signing a vakalatnama is a mere technical irregularity which does not vitiate proceedings, especially where the accused was present and impliedly accepted the counsel. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that technical approaches defeating justice should not be permitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can recall prosecution witnesses for cross-examination on the ground that the counsel who cross-examined them lacked a properly signed vakalatnama?
  • Does a defect or omission in signing a vakalatnama vitiate the judicial proceedings in a criminal trial?
  • Under what circumstances can a court exercise its discretionary powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon or recall a witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahad vs The State and another2024 SCMR 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-13
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryconfessional statementcircumstantial evidencemurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition impugning an order that declined post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 311, 201, 202, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not implicate him and the case otherwise falls within the scope of further inquiry. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting bail to the petitioner. The court held that where statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fail to mention the petitioner and no substantial circumstantial evidence connects him to the crime apart from a prior application by the deceased, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a case fall for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when statements under section 164 do not implicate the accused?
  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the only evidence against the accused is a prior application filed by the deceased and no confessional statement names him?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahad Altaf S/o Altaf Hussain and others vs The State and others2024 SHC 520 · Sindh High Court
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirybank fraudOffences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinanceembezzlementforgerybeneficiary of crime
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by two bank employees, a Customer Service Officer and a Branch Manager, accused of facilitating the opening of allegedly fake accounts in the name of a diplomat's wife, which were purportedly used to siphon funds from the Consulate General of Japan's official accounts. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, given the allegations of forgery and embezzlement. The Court held that the case against the applicants constituted a matter of further inquiry. It noted that the applicants were not beneficiaries of the alleged crime, that the primary accused were mission employees authorized to operate the accounts, and that the prosecution's case relied on documentary evidence already in possession of the authorities, negating risks of tampering. The Court emphasized that Section 5(6) of the Ordinance does not impose an absolute bar on bail but requires reasonable grounds for believing the accused is guilty of a scheduled offence, which was not established here. Consequently, the Court confirmed the grant of bail, ruling that the applicants' roles required trial-stage determination.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 5(6) of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984 impose an absolute bar on granting bail to an accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail where the prosecution's case relies entirely on documentary evidence already in the possession of the investigating agency?
  • Can bail be granted to bank employees accused of facilitating account opening when they are not shown to be beneficiaries of the alleged proceeds of crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahad Ahmed Gulzar S/o Gulzar Ahmed & another vs ASI/Io Saeed2024 SHC 770 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-15
  quashing of orderSection 173 Cr.P.C.Intellectual Property TribunalCopyright Ordinancejurisdiction of magistratepolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Karachi East, whereby the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was returned for presentation before the Intellectual Property Tribunal. The core legal questions involved whether a trial court or magistrate can modify and return a final police report for presentation before a specialized tribunal, and whether bail can be cancelled without proper grounds. The Sindh High Court held that a magistrate cannot dictate the manner of submitting a Section 173 report or arbitrarily return it to a different forum without taking proper cognizance, and that trial courts must apply their judicial mind at the time of framing charges based on the evidence collected. The impugned order returning the report was set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Judicial Magistrate can return a final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. for presentation before the Intellectual Property Tribunal without taking cognizance?
  • Can a trial court direct the Investigating Officer to submit a police report in a particular manner or to specific forums?
  • At what stage is a trial court competent to add, delete, or amend penal sections based on the evidence collected during an investigation?
  • Whether bail already granted to an accused can be cancelled without adhering to the grounds mentioned in Section 497(5) Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Exide Pakistan Ltd vs Pakistan & Others2024 SHC 692 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-27Read full judgment →
• Executive Engineer Irrigation Rohri Division Moro and 4 others vs Gul2024 CLC 1460 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-03Read full judgment →
• Ex. Col. Muhammad Azad Minhas Inayatullah Khan and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence etc2023 SCP 280, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 235, 2024 PLJ SC 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-12
  Field General Court MartialPakistan Army Actalternative chargedouble jeopardylachesconstitutional jurisdictionservice benefitsmilitary discipline
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a consolidated appeal and constitutional petition challenging the conviction and sentencing of former Army officers by a Field General Court Martial (FGCM) under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The appellants were convicted for conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline after failing to report a conspiracy. The core legal questions addressed whether the FGCM proceedings were coram non judice or mala fide, whether conviction on an alternative charge is permissible when the principal charge fails, and whether the withdrawal of service-related housing benefits upon dismissal constitutes double jeopardy. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that military personnel are exclusively subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, for disciplinary violations. The Court affirmed that conviction on alternative charges is legally recognized, and that constitutional petitions filed after inordinate delays are barred by laches. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the forfeiture of service benefits following dismissal from service is a lawful consequence of termination and does not violate the principle of double jeopardy.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person be convicted for an alternative charge under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, if the principal charge is not proved?
  • Does the withdrawal of service-related perks and housing benefits following dismissal from the Army constitute double jeopardy?
  • Are proceedings of a Field General Court Martial subject to judicial review by constitutional courts on grounds other than mala fides or lack of jurisdiction?
  • Does an inordinate delay in filing a constitutional petition against a court-martial conviction warrant dismissal on the grounds of laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Evacuee Trust Property Board, Government of Pakistan through Assistant2024 YLR 657 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-17Read full judgment →
• Evacuee Trust Property Board Larkana / Sukkur Region vs The State and2024 SHC 9 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Essa Khan & others vs Said Alam & others2024 PHC 114 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-19Read full judgment →
• Equity Master Securities (Pvt.) Limited & 03 others vs Pakistan Stock2024 LHC 2925 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Engineer Nasir Zaman Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 1 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal
  civil service seniorityinter-se seniorityinitial recruitmentselection processPublic Service Commissionappointment rulesacquiescence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the legality of seniority lists for Assistant Engineers/SDOs (BPS-17) in the Public Health Engineering Department, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The appellant, recruited via a second advertisement (04/2012) after an earlier advertisement (02/2012), challenged his placement below candidates selected under the first advertisement, despite having qualified in a single written test for both. The core legal question was whether the appellant, as a selectee of a later selection process, was entitled to seniority over those selected in an earlier process, and whether the Public Service Commission was obligated to issue a joint merit list. The Tribunal held that the two advertisements constituted distinct selection processes. Applying Rule 17(a) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, the Tribunal ruled that persons selected in an earlier selection process rank senior to those selected in a later one. The Tribunal affirmed that seniority is determined by the date of the selection process, not the date of joining, and dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant's claim was also barred by acquiescence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single written test conducted for multiple advertisements create a unified selection process for the purpose of determining inter-se seniority?
  • Under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1989, do persons selected in an earlier selection process rank senior to those selected in a later process?
  • Can ability test marks be combined with interview marks to determine final merit for seniority purposes?
  • Does a failure to challenge an earlier seniority list bar a subsequent claim regarding seniority under the principle of acquiescence?
  Read full judgment →
• Engineer Dr. Nazir Hussain vs Provincial Government and others2024 PLC (C.S.) 1561 · Gilgit Baltistan Service Tribunal · 2024-08-27
  service appealadditional chargeproject directorcivil servantlocus standiterms and conditions of serviceservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal was filed by Engineer Dr. Nazir Hussain challenging notifications relating to his removal and replacement as Project Director for the Establishment of 250 Bedded Hospital Skardu, as well as an office order relieving him from his original post as Superintending Engineer. The core legal questions involved whether a person holding an additional charge as a Project Director has locus standi to approach the Service Tribunal under the relevant civil service legislation, and whether an additional charge constitutes part of the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. The Gilgit Baltistan Service Tribunal held that an additional charge of Project Director does not fall within the scope of the terms and conditions of a civil servant under the Gilgit Baltistan Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2022, and therefore the appellant lacked standing to maintain a service appeal in that capacity. However, the Tribunal set aside the illegal appointment of a replacement project director and the subsequent relieving order from his substantive post, directing the government to appoint a full-time project director in accordance with official guidelines.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person holding an additional charge as a Project Director qualifies as a civil servant with locus standi to approach the Service Tribunal?
  • Does an additional charge fall within the definition of the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Can a competent authority withdraw an additional charge assigned to an officer at any time?
  • Does the relief or transfer from an original substantive post on account of an additional charge warrant interference by the Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Engineer Anwer Aleem & others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1164, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 580 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-26
  leave to appeallocus standiinterlocutory ordertenure postservice mattercontractual appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  The Appellants, who were not parties to the original suit, challenged an interlocutory order passed by a learned Single Judge in a matter concerning the assignment of the Chairman, Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Sukkur. The Appellants contended that observations made by the Single Judge regarding the termination of tenure-based contracts were prejudicial to their own separate pending litigation concerning their respective positions in various Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education. The Court examined the maintainability of the appeal, noting that the Appellants had not sought leave to appeal as required by the principle in H. M. Saya & Co. v. Wazir Ali Industries Ltd. The Court held that the Appellants failed to meet the test for leave to appeal, as they could not have been proper parties to the original suit. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the observations in the impugned order were not binding on the adjudication of the Appellants' separate suit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the Appellants lacked the necessary standing to challenge the order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person who was not a party to a suit prefer an appeal against an order passed therein without seeking leave to appeal?
  • What is the test for granting leave to appeal to a person who was not a party to the original proceedings?
  • Are observations made by a court in an interlocutory order binding on the adjudication of a separate, unrelated suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Employees Old Age Benefit Institution through Director Law EOBI vs Messrs2024 CLC 2021 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-06
  arbitration awardrule of the courtnecessary partyprincipal and agentwholly owned subsidiarynovation of contractassignment of rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from appeals filed against the decision of the Civil Court making an arbitration award a Rule of the Court. The core legal question concerns the legality of initiating arbitration proceedings under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and obtaining an award without impleading a primary party to the contract, namely the Employees Old-Age Benefit Institution (EOBI), and whether a wholly owned subsidiary (PRIMACO) acts as an alter ego or assignee capable of substituting the principal without formal assignment or novation. The Lahore High Court held that the arbitral reference, proceedings, and the resulting award were invalid and unlawful because EOBI was not a party to the section 20 proceedings or the arbitration, and its subsidiary PRIMACO could not substitute it without a valid assignment or novation of contract. The key principle laid down is that a parent entity or principal cannot be bound by arbitration proceedings or an award resulting from a reference under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to which it was not a party, and a wholly owned subsidiary acting as an agent does not automatically become an alter ego or substitute for the principal for arbitration purposes in the absence of formal assignment or novation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an arbitration agreement can be filed and a reference made under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, in the absence of a principal party to the contract?
  • Does a wholly owned subsidiary acting as an agent automatically substitute the principal party to a contract for the purposes of arbitration proceedings without a formal assignment or novation?
  • Is an arbitration award and a decree making it the Rule of the Court sustainable when the reference to arbitration was invalid due to the non-impleadment of a necessary party?
  Read full judgment →
• Emanuel Kahsai vs His Majesty the King, Director of Public Prosecuti_19a67d4b2024 SCMR 318 · Supreme Court of Canada · 2023-07-28Read full judgment →
• Eman Waseem vs The Returning Officer, Na-50, Attock-II, Attock and 22024 LHC 36, 2024 PLJ Lahore 96 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Election Commission of Pakistan through Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad. (In both cases) vs Salman Akram Raja and others, Omar Hashim Khan and others2024 SCP 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-20
  Election TribunalsElection Commission of Pakistanconsultation processleave to appealwrit petition maintainabilityjudicial appointmentsaggrieved partyPractice and Procedure Act
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil Petitions for leave to appeal were filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan against a single Judge judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the process of appointing Election Tribunals. The High Court had held that primacy rests with the Chief Justice of the High Court in the consultation process for appointing Election Tribunals, relying on constitutional precedents regarding judicial appointments and administrative tribunals. The petitioner argued that under Articles 219(c), 222(d), and 225 of the Constitution, alongside Section 140 of the Elections Act, 2017, the power to appoint Election Tribunals is explicitly vested in the Commission upon consultation with the Chief Justice, without requiring judicial primacy. Issues were also raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions, the locus standi of the contesting candidates, the necessity of intra-court appeals under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, and the impleadment of additional parties. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the substantial constitutional questions raised, directed notice to the Attorney-General for Pakistan, and referred the matter to the Committee under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chief Justice of a High Court enjoy primacy in the consultation process for appointing Election Tribunals under Section 140 of the Elections Act, 2017 and the Constitution?
  • Can a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution be maintained against an administrative consultation process between the Election Commission of Pakistan and the Chief Justice of a High Court?
  • Are political candidates 'aggrieved parties' within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution regarding delay or disputes in the notification of Election Tribunals?
  Read full judgment →
• Election Commission of Pakistan through Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad and others vs Salman Akram Raja and others2024 SCP 331, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 1246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-24
  Election Tribunalsconsultation with Chief JusticeElection Commission of Pakistanappointment of judgesconstitutional bodyelection petitionswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from appeals filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the authority to appoint Election Tribunals and the requirement of consultation with the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court. The core legal question involved the interpretation of constitutional provisions and statutory sections governing the appointment of Election Tribunals and the nature of consultation required between the Election Commission and the High Court Chief Justice. The Supreme Court facilitated a meeting between the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court and the Chief Election Commissioner, leading to an amicable resolution and consensus on the appointments. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court judgment and disposed of the appeals, emphasizing that disputes between constitutional bodies and officeholders should be resolved through meaningful consultation rather than litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Election Commission of Pakistan is required to consult the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court for the appointment of sitting judges as Election Tribunals?
  • Can the Election Commission of Pakistan demand a panel of judges from the Chief Justice of the High Court for appointment as Election Tribunals?
  • Are writ petitions maintainable against administrative correspondence and orders concerning the appointment of Election Tribunals between constitutional authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Election Commission of Pakistan thr. its Secretary, Islamabad vs Dawood2024 SCP 3, 2024 SCMR 556 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-02
  Election Commission of PakistanReturning OfficerElection scheduleEx-parte orderAdministrative discretionScrutiny of nomination papers
  Summary & questions settled

  The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) challenged an ad-interim ex-parte order of the Peshawar High Court, which had suspended an ECP notification replacing a Returning Officer. The ECP contended that the replacement was necessitated by the officer's ill health and was a valid exercise of administrative discretion. The respondents failed to demonstrate any grievance or legal basis for challenging the appointment. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's ex-parte order, issued without notice to the ECP, disrupted the election schedule and jeopardized the electoral process. The Court held that the ECP acted within its authority for justifiable reasons and that no allegations were leveled against the newly appointed officer. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, dismissed the underlying writ petition, and directed that the scrutiny of nomination papers proceed according to a revised schedule to ensure the integrity of the election process. The judgment emphasizes that courts should exercise caution in passing ex-parte orders that interfere with the constitutional mandate of the ECP to conduct elections.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court pass an ad-interim ex-parte order suspending an Election Commission of Pakistan notification regarding the appointment of a Returning Officer without notice?
  • Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have the authority to replace a Returning Officer on medical grounds?
  • Is the exercise of administrative discretion by the Election Commission of Pakistan in appointing election staff subject to judicial interference absent allegations of illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz vs The State2024 MLD 1955 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-09-04
  concurrent sentencesjail appealhardship casequantum of sentencesubsequent convictioncriminal miscellaneousreformative theory of punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous jail appeal was filed by the appellant through the Superintendent Central Prison, Gaddani, seeking an order for his sentences in multiple cases—specifically FIR No. 14 of 2023, FIR No. 28 of 2013, FIR No. 32 of 2014, and FIR No. 35 of 2014—to run concurrently. The core legal question before the court was whether the High Court is competent under Section 561-A and Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to compute and direct multiple sentences awarded in different trials to run concurrently. The Balochistan High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the court possesses wide and unfettered discretion under Section 397 read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct sentences from separate trials to run concurrently in cases of hardship to prevent ruthless treatment and defeat of the reformative purpose of incarceration. The key principle laid down is that courts must exercise their inherent and statutory powers to order concurrent execution of sentences in appropriate cases of hardship.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is competent under Section 561-A read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order multiple sentences awarded in different trials to run concurrently?
  • Can the benefit of concurrent sentences be extended to a convict who has been sentenced in multiple separate trials arising out of different FIRs?
  • Does Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confer discretion on the court to direct a subsequent sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently with a previous sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Manzoor Chaudhary vs Fauzia Viqar and 4 others2024 CLC 678 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-14Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad vs Additional District Judge, Pasroor and others2024 SCMR 1106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-17
  specific performanceoral agreementpower of attorneyfraudulent decreeante-datingcivil revisioncosts
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement, which was decreed just four days after filing based on the statement of a purported attorney, prior to the return date of the summons. The defendant subsequently challenged the decree under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alleging fraud. The application was allowed, and the decision was upheld by both the revisional court and the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the decree was unsustainable. The Court observed that the trial court failed to verify the identity of the attorney, examine the original power of attorney, or pass an order ante-dating the hearing. The Court laid down the principle that a court must strictly verify the identity and authority of a power of attorney holder before decreeing a suit on their statement, and that obtaining a decree through such procedural lapses constitutes fraud, justifying the imposition of costs for protracted litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit be validly decreed on the statement of an attorney without the court verifying the original power of attorney and the attorney's identity?
  • Is a decree sustainable if passed before the return date of the summons without any formal application or order for ante-dating the hearing?
  • Whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable against a decree obtained through a purported attorney without proper service of summons?
  Read full judgment →
• Eijaz Ali vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 4 others2024 PLC (C.S.) 1402 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-19
  Constitutional petitionOwn Pay and ScaleQuo WarrantoCivil service appointmentRecruitment rulesSeniority-cum-fitnessInspector General of Prisons
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Inspector General of Prisons (IGP), Sindh, on an "Own Pay and Scale" (OPS) basis, arguing it violated the Recruitment Rules of 2022, which mandate filling the BPS-21 post by promotion from among DIGs on a seniority-cum-fitness basis. The core legal question was whether the government could bypass these rules to appoint a junior officer to a senior selection post. The Court held that the impugned notifications were illegal, as the post is 100% reserved for promotion. It emphasized that "Own Pay and Scale" postings are destructive to civil service structures and should only be utilized as temporary stop-gap measures. Consequently, the Court struck down the notifications and directed the competent authority to fill the post of IGP in strict accordance with the established Recruitment Rules within one month. In the interim, the Court ordered that any stop-gap arrangement must comply with Rule 8-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, by appointing the senior-most officer of the cadre.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department fill a post reserved for promotion by appointing a junior officer on an 'Own Pay and Scale' basis?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to review the fitness of a civil servant for a selection post in a petition for Quo Warranto?
  • Is the practice of continuing acting charge or ad-hoc arrangements on 'Own Pay and Scale' for an extensive period permissible under civil service law?
  • Must the appointment to a post reserved for promotion strictly follow the seniority-cum-fitness criteria prescribed in recruitment rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Eid Rehman vs SHO PS Cantt & others2024 PHC 7 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-12Read full judgment →
• Ehtisham Ali vs Province of Punjab, etc2024 LHC 5025 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-29Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ullah vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 SHC 56 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-12Read full judgment →
• Ehsan ul Haq & others, The Aj&K Bar Council vs Azad Govt. & others2024 SC AJK 76 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-12-03Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ali vs The State, etc2024 LHC 5229, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 30 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-18
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationconcealment of factsfraud upon the courtjudicial integrityforum shoppingcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, which cancelled the petitioner's post-arrest bail. The core legal question was whether bail obtained through the concealment of a previously withdrawn bail application in the same case constitutes a valid ground for cancellation. The petitioner had filed an initial bail application, which was withdrawn by his counsel, and subsequently filed a second application the following day without disclosing the prior withdrawal, leading to the second application being heard by a different judge who granted bail. The court held that obtaining relief through the concealment of material facts, such as the dismissal of a prior bail application, constitutes a fraud upon the court and is impermissible. The court affirmed the cancellation of bail, emphasizing that such conduct violates the principles laid down in established precedents regarding the integrity of judicial proceedings. The court endorsed the reasoning of the lower court, concluding that relief obtained through foul play cannot be sustained, regardless of the underlying merits of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the concealment of a previously withdrawn bail application in a subsequent bail application constitute grounds for the cancellation of bail?
  • Can a court cancel bail if the order granting it was obtained by keeping the court in the dark about prior proceedings?
  • Is it permissible for an appellate court to endorse the reasoning of a lower court judgment without re-tracing the entire path of the decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Efg Hermes Pakistan Limited and Intermarket Securities Limited vs Pakistan Stock Exchange and others2024 SHC 1038 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-09Read full judgment →
• East West Insurance Co. Ltd. etc vs Aurangzeb etc2024 PHC 348, 2025 CLD 527 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-04Read full judgment →
• DVCom Data (Pvt.) Limited vs Pakistan Telecommunication Authority &2024 SHC 1060, 2025 PLJ Karachi 31 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Duraid Qureshi and another vs Additional Director/How, Adjudication2024 CLD 652 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-08-25Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad vs Zafarullah son of Sanwalo Malik and Three Others2024 SHC 38, 2024 PLJ Karachi 53, 2025 PLD Sindh 15 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-26Read full judgment →
• Duniya Gul and another vs Niaz Muhammad and others2024 SCP 25, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 672 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-16
  closure of evidenceadjournmentscivil procedurepenal provisionSupreme Courtfirst appeal against order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the Peshawar High Court's judgment dismissing the petitioners' first appeal against an order of the trial court that struck off their right to produce oral evidence. The core legal question concerned whether the trial court was justified in invoking Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to close the petitioners' evidence after they repeatedly failed to produce it despite numerous adjournments, warnings, and costs. The Supreme Court held that the trial court was fully justified in striking off the petitioners' right to produce oral evidence, as all necessary conditions—specifically, the granting of time with a clear warning of penal consequences and subsequent default by the party—were duly satisfied. The key principle laid down is that courts must rigorously enforce final opportunities granted for producing evidence and curb the detrimental practice of granting liberal, unjustified adjournments that obstruct the prompt delivery of justice.

  Questions settled

  • What conditions must be satisfied before a court can invoke Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to close a party's right to produce evidence?
  • Whether a trial court is justified in striking off the right to produce oral evidence after a party fails to comply with multiple final opportunities and specific warnings?
  • Does the liberal granting of adjournments by lower courts contribute to the backlog of litigation in the judicial system?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr.Iqrar Ahmad Khan etc vs Director General, Anti Corruption2024 LHC 3386, 2024 PLJ Lahore 704, 2025 YLR 281 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-09Read full judgment →
• Dr.Faryal Maqsood and another vs Khurram Shehzad Durrani and others2024 SCP 365, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-23
  dissolution of marriagedowerdowryKhulapolygamyMuslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961Section 2(iia) Dissolution of Muslims Marriages Act 1939restitution of conjugal rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a family dispute involving claims for dower, dowry, maintenance, and the dissolution of marriage. The core legal questions addressed were whether the trial court correctly decreed the recovery of dower and maintenance, whether the appellate court erred in granting dissolution via Khula without the wife's request, and whether Section 2(iia) of the Dissolution of Muslims Marriages Act 1939 remains a valid ground for dissolution. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's findings on dower, dowry, and maintenance were concurrent and sustainable. It ruled that a court cannot grant Khula without an express or implied request from the wife. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Section 2(iia) of the Dissolution of Muslims Marriages Act 1939, which allows for dissolution when a husband takes an additional wife in contravention of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, remains a valid and subsisting provision. The Court set aside the lower courts' decrees regarding Khula and cruelty, instead dissolving the marriage based on the husband's contravention of the Ordinance of 1961.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula without an express or implied request from the wife?
  • Does the repeal of Section 13 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 affect the validity of Section 2(iia) of the Dissolution of Muslims Marriages Act 1939?
  • Is the taking of an additional wife in contravention of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 a valid ground for the dissolution of marriage under the Dissolution of Muslims Marriages Act 1939?
  • Can the High Court, while exercising constitutional jurisdiction, decide questions of fact requiring the recording of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Zahir & Others vs Hazara University & others2024 PHC 396 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-12-03Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sherin Sultan, Chief Consultant Gynecologist PHQ Hospital Gilgit vs Government of Gilgit-Baltistan through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit and 3 others2024 PLC (C.S.) 299 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-10-28
  writ jurisdictiontransfer and postingcivil servantmala fidesexigency of serviceadministrative discretionservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Chief Consultant Gynecologist, challenged her transfer and posting order, alleging it was unlawful, discriminatory, and motivated by mala fides to accommodate other individuals. The petitioner contended that she had been subjected to frequent transfers and that her seniority and service rights were adversely affected. The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable as the transfer of a civil servant is an administrative prerogative exercised in the exigency of service and public interest. Furthermore, they asserted that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Services Tribunal. The Court held that the transfer and posting of a government servant is a routine administrative matter within the domain of the competent authority and cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction absent proof of material irregularity or illegality. The Court found no evidence of mala fides, noting the petitioner had remained in her preferred location since 2013. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as meritless, though the Court directed that disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner subsequent to the transfer order be deemed ineffective.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant challenge a transfer and posting order in writ jurisdiction?
  • Does the court have the authority to interfere with the routine transfer of a government servant in the absence of proven mala fides?
  • Is the transfer of a civil servant in the exigency of service a matter within the exclusive domain of the competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shehzad Nasim and another vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 PLJ Karachi 138 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-12Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahzad Tarique & another vs Po Sindh & others2024 SHC 196, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1433 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-06
  civil serviceequal protection of lawdiscriminatory classificationservice rulestransfer policymedical cadreconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, Assistant Professors and Demonstrators in a government medical college, challenged the denial of their request to opt for permanent transfer to the Management Cadre under the Sindh Health Management Service Rules, 2022. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, despite belonging to the teaching cadre, were entitled to the one-time option for transfer provided under Rule 18 of the said Rules, which explicitly lists other cadres but omits the teaching cadre. The Court held that the exclusion of the petitioners from the benefit of Rule 18 was discriminatory and lacked a reasonable classification. The Court reasoned that the government's apprehension regarding potential teaching staff shortages did not justify denying equal treatment to qualified doctors. Furthermore, the Court determined that the omission of the teaching cadre in the rule appeared to be an inadvertent oversight rather than an intentional exclusion. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' cases for transfer in accordance with the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government deny a benefit to a specific class of civil servants based on an administrative apprehension of staff shortages?
  • Does the omission of a specific cadre in a service rule justify excluding members of that cadre from a one-time transfer option available to other similarly qualified civil servants?
  • Is a petition seeking the enforcement of a one-time option provided under service rules maintainable if it is argued to relate to terms and conditions of service?
  • Does the principle of equality before the law require the inclusion of all similarly qualified doctors in a transfer scheme despite the absence of their specific cadre in the text of the rule?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahida Mansoor vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry2024 LHC 5101, 2024 LHC 4661, 2025 CLC 209 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-30Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahid Karim and 3 others vs The Chief Executive Officer, Sindh Health2024 PLD Sindh 320 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-22
  medical negligencecriminal liabilityquashing of proceedingsmedical malpracticestandard of proofprofessional immunitySindh Healthcare Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed by medical professionals seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them following the death of a patient. The core legal question was whether the allegations of medical negligence against the doctors warranted criminal prosecution under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Sindh Healthcare Commission had previously investigated the incident, concluding that while there were administrative lapses at the hospital, there was no evidence of medical negligence or criminal liability on the part of the doctors. The Court held that criminal liability for medical professionals requires a higher degree of negligence—recklessness or deliberate wrong—than that required for civil liability. Emphasizing that doctors must be allowed to make professional decisions without the constant fear of criminal litigation, the Court quashed the proceedings arising from the FIR. The key principle laid down is that courts must exercise extreme caution when initiating criminal proceedings against medical practitioners, as mere lack of care or inadvertence constitutes civil, not criminal, liability, and the findings of specialized bodies like the Healthcare Commission should be given significant weight.

  Questions settled

  • What is the distinction between civil and criminal liability in cases of alleged medical negligence?
  • Does the mere occurrence of a patient's death during treatment justify criminal prosecution of the attending doctors?
  • Should the findings of a specialized medical regulatory body be considered when determining criminal liability for medical negligence?
  • Can criminal proceedings against medical professionals be quashed if the allegations do not meet the standard of gross negligence?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shah Alam Khan, Professor & Chairman Department of Plant2024 PHC 144 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →