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.

• Basham Baloch & Others vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 164, 2025 CLC 625 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-27Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ullah vs The State & another2024 IHC 250, 2025 PCRLJ 994 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-27
  prohibitory clausegrant of bailborderline casenarcotics investigationphysical remandmaximum punishmentforfeiture of assets
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference was constituted before the Islamabad High Court to resolve critical legal questions regarding the interpretation of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and its application under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The Court addressed whether 'punishable' refers to the minimum or maximum prescribed sentence when determining whether an offence falls under the prohibitory clause, and whether a 'borderline case' based on quantity can justify bail on further inquiry. The High Court held that 'punishable' under Section 497(1) strictly refers to the maximum punishment provided for an offence; if the maximum sentence is ten years or more, the prohibitory clause is attracted. Consequently, adopting 'borderline cases' in narcotics matters at the bail stage improperly anticipates conviction lengths. Furthermore, under Section 49A of the Act, investigating agencies have a mandatory duty, not mere discretion, to conduct thorough investigations up to ninety days, tracing the complete supply chain and illicit assets for forfeiture.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'punishable' in Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 refer to the minimum or the maximum sentence prescribed for an offence?
  • Does a borderline quantity of narcotics justify granting bail under the ground of further inquiry under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it mandatory for investigating agencies under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 to trace the full supply chain and financial assets derived from drug trafficking?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali & others vs The State & another2024 SHC 566, 2025 PCRLJ 41 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-27
  Illegal Dispossession Actland grabbingcivil disputeco-sharersinheritance disputecriminal intentQabza Group
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants, who are brothers of the complainant, challenged their conviction under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, regarding a dispute over agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the Act applies to civil or inheritance-related property disputes between family members or co-sharers. The Court held that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is specifically designed to address the activities of land grabbers, Qabza Groups, or land mafia and is not intended for ordinary civil or revenue disputes between co-owners, co-sharers, or family members. The Court ruled that where a dispute involves competing claims of inheritance or title, the parties must approach a court of plenary jurisdiction rather than invoking criminal proceedings for illegal dispossession. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that trial courts must filter out complaints lacking the requisite criminal intent and antecedents of land grabbing. The principle established is that the Act cannot be used to settle private property disputes that are properly the domain of civil or revenue courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply to property disputes between co-owners or family members?
  • What are the essential requirements for a complaint to be maintainable under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Can a court entertain a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 when the matter of possession is already subject to civil or revenue court jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Bangal Khan, Muhammad Murad vs The State2024 IHC 102, 2024 PCRLJ 1241 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-04
  narcotics controlunauthorized investigationconscious knowledgevehicle confiscationdue processCIA investigationacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their conviction and the confiscation of their vehicle in a narcotics case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The core legal questions concerned the legality of the investigation conducted by CIA officials without proper authorization, the sufficiency of evidence regarding the accused's 'conscious knowledge' of narcotics hidden in a secret vehicle cavity, and the validity of the vehicle's confiscation without notice to the owner. The Islamabad High Court held that the investigation was fundamentally flawed because the CIA officials lacked the requisite legal authorization to search and investigate, and the prosecution failed to establish the accused's conscious knowledge of the contraband. Furthermore, the court found that the confiscation of the vehicle was unlawful as the trial court failed to verify ownership or prove the owner's complicity as required by law. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant and ordered the release of the vehicle, emphasizing that procedural lapses in investigation and the failure to adhere to statutory requirements for search and confiscation vitiate the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an investigation conducted by CIA officials without specific authorization vitiate a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the accused's conscious knowledge of narcotics found in a secret cavity of a vehicle?
  • Can a vehicle be confiscated under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 without proving the owner's knowledge of the offense?
  • Does the failure to associate the vehicle owner in the investigation violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Balqiaz Ali Shah alias Atta vs Wresham Gul & others2024 PHC 206, 2025 PLD Peshawar 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-30Read full judgment →
• Balochistan Bar Council through Vice-Chairman vs Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary Balochistan, Civil Secretariat and 2 others2024 CLD 462 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-24Read full judgment →
• Bakht Biland Khan and others vs Zahid Khan and others2024 SCP 346, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 1273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-30
  inheritancefemale inheritanceshariahmutationfrivolous litigationexemplary costsrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arose from a civil suit filed by the petitioners (brothers) challenging the inheritance mutation of their deceased father, Shah Jehan, who passed away in 1988. The petitioners sought to exclude their sisters from inheriting their father's estate on the ground that the father had gifted them cash and dowry during his lifetime. The trial court, appellate court, and High Court all dismissed the petitioners' claims. On further petition, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether daughters can be excluded from their father's inheritance on the basis of lifetime gifts or dowry. The Court held that such a proposition is completely contrary to Islamic Shariah and the law of Pakistan. The Court strongly condemned the practice of male heirs depriving female heirs of their legal inheritance through protracted and frivolous litigation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition with exemplary costs of five hundred thousand rupees to be distributed among the deprived heirs, and directed the revenue authorities to ensure the estate is distributed in accordance with Shariah.

  Questions settled

  • Can daughters be excluded from their father's inheritance on the ground that they received gifts or dowry during his lifetime?
  • What measures can the Supreme Court take against male heirs who engage in frivolous litigation to deprive female heirs of their inheritance?
  • Whether revenue authorities are bound to ensure the distribution of a deceased's estate among all legal heirs in accordance with Shariah?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakhsh vs Member (Judicial VII), Board of Revenue etc.2024 LHC 737, 2024 PLJ Lahore 219 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-20Read full judgment →
• Bagh Ali vs Addl. District Judge, etc2024 LHC 2256, 2024 PLD Lahore 695 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-18Read full judgment →
• Badar Majeed Choudhary vs Government of the Punjab, etc2024 LHC 5280 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-17Read full judgment →
• Babar Zulifqar Nizami & Ors vs Khursheed Ali Shah & Another2024 SHC 200 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-06
  defamationcognizancebailable warrantinterim orderblocking CNICblocking bank accountnon-communication of orderstay of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose out of a Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed before the Sindh High Court challenging an order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Thatta, in Direct Complaint No.03/2023. The trial court had taken cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, and 502 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and issued bailable warrants against the applicants. Although the High Court had granted an ad-interim order on 22.11.2023 suspending the operation of the impugned order, the trial court subsequently issued a letter on 27.11.2023 to the State Bank of Pakistan and NADRA authorities to block applicant No.1's CNIC and bank account. The core question was the legal propriety and effect of the trial court's order issued after the High Court's suspension order. The High Court observed that the trial court's letter was likely written due to non-communication of its ad-interim order, directed the trial judge to exercise caution in the future, and ordered the trial court to immediately issue directions to de-block applicant No.1's CNIC and bank account.

  Questions settled

  • What action should a trial court take when it issues orders impacting a party's rights after an ad-interim suspension order has been granted by a High Court?
  • Can actions taken by a trial court pursuant to an impugned order be reversed if they were issued after a High Court suspended the operation of that impugned order?
  Read full judgment →
• Babar Sultan vs Government of the Punjab etc2024 LHC 5993, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 693 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-17
  recruitment policywaiting listservice mattertermination of serviceconstitutional petitionmerit listPEEDA Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of the authorities to appoint the petitioner to the post of SSE (Engineer) following the termination of a previously appointed candidate. The core legal question was whether a candidate next on the merit list is entitled to appointment when a selected candidate, who had already joined, is subsequently removed from service under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had no legal entitlement to the post. The Court determined that Clause ix of the Recruitment Policy of 2011 permits the appointment of the next candidate on the merit list only in specific scenarios: where a selectee fails to join, refuses the offer, or leaves voluntarily within 190 days. The Court established the principle that a vacancy arising from the dismissal of an employee under the PEEDA Act is fundamentally different from a voluntary departure or failure to join. Consequently, such a vacancy does not trigger the waiting list mechanism and must instead be filled through a fresh recruitment process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the removal of a public servant under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 create a vacancy that must be filled by the next candidate on the merit list?
  • Under the Recruitment Policy of 2011, in what specific circumstances is the appointing authority permitted to offer a post to the next candidate on the merit list?
  • Can a vacancy arising from the dismissal of an employee be filled from the waiting list without initiating a fresh recruitment process?
  Read full judgment →
• Babar Rasool through Special Attorney vs Additional District Judge, Sargodha and 2 others2024 YLR 265 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-09Read full judgment →
• Babar Azeem Afridi vs Election Commission of Pakistan through its2024 PHC 40 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Babar Azeem Afridi vs Election Commission of Pakistan and 4 others2024 PHC 10 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-11Read full judgment →
• Babar Anwar vs Muhammad Ashraf and another2024 SCP 128, 2024 SCMR 734, 2024 PLJ SC 373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-24
  power of attorneyHibagift deedconcurrent findingscivil revisionfiduciary dutyalienation of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a revision against concurrent findings of lower courts, which had decreed a suit for the cancellation of a registered gift deed. The core legal question was whether a general attorney possesses the authority to gift a principal's property to a third party or themselves without explicit consent, and whether such a transfer is valid under Islamic law. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings. The Court held that a general power of attorney does not inherently authorize an agent to gift the principal's property, especially to themselves or their kin, without specific, proven instructions and consent from the principal. The Court emphasized that a valid 'Hiba' (gift) requires the donor's intent, acceptance, and delivery of possession. It further established that an attorney must obtain express permission from the principal before alienating property, particularly when the transaction benefits the attorney or their relations. The Court also noted that inconsistent pleas—claiming both gift and sale—undermine the validity of the transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a general attorney gift a principal's property without obtaining specific permission or consent from the principal?
  • Does a plea of gift and a plea of sale regarding the same property constitute mutually destructive arguments?
  • What are the essential legal requirements for a valid Hiba under Islamic law?
  • To what extent can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Babar Ali vs SSP Sanghar and others2024 SHC 1120 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-26
  second FIRcross versionsfree fightcognizable offenceJustice of Peacepolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under sections 22-A(a) and (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, directing the registration of a second FIR based on a cross-version of a free fight. The core legal question revolves around the legality and propriety of registering multiple FIRs for the same incident when an FIR has already been lodged by the opposing party. The court held that in cases of free fights involving cross-versions, a second FIR is unwarranted, as subsequent divergent versions must be recorded and investigated within the ambit of the existing FIR pursuant to the dictum laid down in the landmark judgment of Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State. The court modified the impugned order, directing the investigating officer to record the respondent's version verbatim within the existing case and proceed in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second FIR be registered in respect of the same incident when an FIR has already been lodged?
  • How should an investigating officer handle divergent versions or subsequent information regarding the same occurrence?
  • Is a separate FIR required for every new version of the same incident brought to the notice of the police during investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Babar Ali and another vs Muhammad Iqbal and 2 others2024 PCRLJ 105 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-27
  criminal acquittal appealbenefit of doubtinvestigation before FIRdelay in FIRpolice station identificationdelayed FSL transmissiondouble presumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Usta Muhammad, whereby respondents were acquitted of charges under sections 324, 427, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the legality of conducting an investigation prior to the registration of an FIR, the evidentiary value of delayed FIRs, identification parades conducted at police stations, and the delayed transmission of crime empties and weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Balochistan High Court held that the police committed a material illegality by initiating an investigation prior to registering the FIR under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR creates a reasonable doubt, that police station identification without a formal parade is valueless, and that tainted recovery evidence cannot corroborate the prosecution's case. Consequently, the High Court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing that the respondents enjoyed a double presumption of innocence and that the trial court's judgment was neither perverse nor arbitrary. The appeal was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Does an investigation conducted by the police prior to the formal registration of an FIR vitiate the prosecution case?
  • Can an identification of an accused conducted at a police station without holding a formal identification parade be legally relied upon?
  • What is the effect of unexplained delay in the lodgment of an FIR on the prosecution case?
  • Does the simultaneous delayed sending of crime empties and recovered weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory render the recovery inconclusive?
  • What grounds are required to interfere with an order of acquittal that carries a double presumption of innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• B.R.R Guardian Modaraba & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 974, 2025 PLD Sindh 59, 2025 CLD 319 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-23Read full judgment →
• B.P. Pakistan Exploration and Production, Inc. vs Ashique Hussain Halepoto2024 SCP 119, 2024 SCMR 833 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-07
  land acquisitioncompulsory acquisition chargespublic purposeadditional compensationSection 28-Amarket valueinterest on compensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the determination of compensation for agricultural land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of appeals by a company, the appropriate calculation of compensation, the applicable rate for compulsory acquisition charges under Section 23(2), the retrospective effect of the omission of Section 28-A, and the entitlement to interest on compensation where rent was previously paid. The Supreme Court held that appeals under Section 54 are maintainable. Regarding compulsory charges, the Court clarified that the determining factor is the purpose of acquisition stated in the notification; if declared a 'public purpose,' the rate is 15%, regardless of the beneficiary being a company. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Section 28-A, having been omitted with retrospective effect, provides no basis for additional compensation. Finally, the Court held that interest on compensation is only payable from the date the landowner ceased receiving lease payments, as possession is deemed to continue until that point. The judgment affirms that the purpose of acquisition, as declared by the government, dictates the statutory compulsory charges.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal maintainable by a company against a judgment of a Referee Court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  • Does the declaration of 'public purpose' in an acquisition notification mandate a 15% compulsory charge, even if the acquisition is for a company?
  • Can additional compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 be claimed after its retrospective omission?
  • From what date is interest on compensation payable when the acquiring company was previously paying lease rent to the landowner?
  Read full judgment →
• Azka Wahid vs Province of Punjab & others2024 LHC 1392, 2024 PLJ Lahore 734, 2025 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-07Read full judgment →
• Azizullah Soomro & Another vs Muzafar Hussain & Others2024 SHC 336, 2024 CLC 1740 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-24Read full judgment →
• Azizullah Memon and others vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary2024 PLC (C.S.) 1430 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-30
  disabled quotapersons with disabilitiesPWDsemployment quotafundamental rightsequality and non-discriminationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional petitions were filed in the High Court of Sindh seeking directions to official respondents to appoint the petitioners against the 5% quota reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) across Sindh government departments, and to enforce the directives issued by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in CPLAs Nos. 745-K to 750-K. The core legal question concerned the state's constitutional obligation to implement reserved employment quotas for disabled persons and uphold their fundamental rights to equality, dignity, and non-discrimination. The High Court emphasized that the state must provide additional support and facilities to enable PWDs to lead a life of equal dignity, reaffirming that the binding judgment of the Supreme Court mandates strict compliance with quota rules. Noting the Additional Advocate General's assurance that 1572 available vacancies would be filled in accordance with the declared policy and Supreme Court directives within a stipulated timeframe, the Court reinforced the binding nature of the apex court's ruling under the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Is the government obligated under the law to implement reserved employment quotas for persons with disabilities?
  • What duties do provincial authorities owe to persons with disabilities regarding equal treatment and dignity in public employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz Khalid and others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 PLJ Karachi 72 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-26Read full judgment →
• Aziz Khalid and another vs Province of Sindh and others2024 PLJ Karachi 76 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-22Read full judgment →
• Azhar Pervaiz Bukhari vs The State & another2024 SCP 247, 2024 SCMR 1719, PLJ 2025 SC (Cr.C.) 70 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-01
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequemala fidecriminal breachlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court declining his pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for issuing a dishonoured cheque amounting to Rs. 80,00,000/-. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner established mala fide on the part of the complainant, whether the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the petition was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was specifically nominated, did not deny his signatures on the cheque, and failed to establish any mala fide or ulterior motives, rendering the FIR for theft of the cheque false. The Court ruled that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary equitable relief requiring proof of mala fide, and dismissed the petition both on the ground of unexplained delay in filing and on merits, refusing leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted without establishing mala fide on the part of the complainant or the investigating agency?
  • Does the issuance of a dishonoured cheque where signatures are undisputed warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed on the ground of an un-condoned delay of 35 days?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Hussain Shah and others vs Capital Development Authority through its Chairman & another2024 IHC 214 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-30Read full judgment →
• Azhar Ali, Kamran Ali vs The State, The State2024 SHC 850 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-02
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailmala fidenon-prohibitory clauserobberytentative assessmentdefective investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought pre-arrest and post-arrest bail regarding an FIR for robbery under Sections 392, 34, and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the alleged mala fides of the complainant and contradictions in the prosecution's narrative. The court observed significant discrepancies between the FIR, which stated the accused fled, and the investigation officer's claim of an on-the-spot or next-day arrest, indicating potential mala fides and a need for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that the case did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, the court granted bail to both applicants. The judgment reaffirmed that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief granted in cases of mala fides, and that for offenses outside the prohibitory clause, the concession of bail should be the rule rather than the exception, provided there is no overwhelming evidence connecting the accused to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between the FIR's narrative and the investigation officer's statement regarding the arrest of an accused constitute grounds for finding mala fide intent?
  • Is the grant of bail mandatory for offenses that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the scope of the court's power to conduct a tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage?
  • Can a court order a fresh investigation or disciplinary action against an investigation officer upon finding evidence of defective investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Ali alias Zeeba vs The State2024 MLD 1407 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-04-10
  post-arrest bailcontrol of narcotic substancesnon-association of private witnessesfurther inquirymala fide prosecutionpolice testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant, Azhar Ali alias Zeeba, seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 22 of 2023 registered under Section 9(1)3C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, at Police Station Hub, District Lasbela, concerning the alleged recovery of 3000 grams of charas and a pistol. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the alleged non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding private witnesses in a populated area, and prior mala fides arising from a complaint filed by the applicant's mother against the local SHO. The Balochistan High Court held that the absence of private witnesses from a populated area, coupled with the prior legal proceedings initiated by the applicant's mother against police officials, made the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court laid down the principle that when a narcotics case relies solely on police witness testimony without associating available private mashirs from a populated locality, and where prior mala fides and counter-complaints exist, the matter falls within the scope of further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to associate private witnesses from a populated area during a narcotics recovery makes the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Does a prior complaint filed by an accused person's family against local police create a ground of mala fides supporting post-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution case rests entirely on police officials' evidence requiring minute scrutiny?
  Read full judgment →
• Azeem Bakhash Chaudhary vs Returning Officer, Constituency Pp-192024 LHC 87 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-09Read full judgment →
• Azam Shah vs The State etc.2024 PHC 56 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-26Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, through Secretary2024 SC AJK 56 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Azad Government of The State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief2024 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 20 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-02-23Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir through Chief2024 PLJ AJ&K 78 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Ayesha Maqsood vs KP Public Service Commission & others2024 PHC 110 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-26Read full judgment →
• Ayazullah S/O Syed Umer vs The State2024 SHC 826, 2025 PCRLJ 517 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-11
  post-arrest bailnon-prohibitory clausetest identification paradecriminal historyrobberydacoitystolen property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Ayazullah, who was charged under Sections 397, 398, 511, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought bail after the trial court declined his plea, citing his alleged involvement in a robbery where two individuals were killed and his alleged criminal history. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the lack of identification, the absence of his name in the FIR, and the non-prohibitory nature of the offense. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish sufficient incriminating material, noting the absence of a test identification parade and the lack of evidence connecting the applicant to the recovered vehicle. Furthermore, the Court observed that the case did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that mere pendency of criminal cases does not disentitle an accused to bail absent a conviction, and that cases falling outside the prohibitory clause should generally be granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere pendency of other criminal cases against an accused disentitle them to the grant of bail?
  • Is a test identification parade necessary when an accused is not named in the FIR and is arrested days after the incident?
  • Should bail be granted in cases that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the essential elements the prosecution must prove to establish an offense under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Hussain & others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1376 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-19
  service mattercontractual serviceseniorityregularizationpromotionconstitutional jurisdictioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Head Masters/Mistresses (BS-17) seeking a declaration that the failure of the Respondents to nominate them for mandatory departmental training for promotion to BS-18 was illegal and discriminatory. The Petitioners argued that their contractual service, dating back to their initial appointment, should be counted towards their total length of service for seniority and promotion purposes. The core legal question was whether contractual service can be reckoned for seniority and promotion after regularization. The Court held that contractual service does not count towards seniority or promotion, as seniority is strictly reckoned from the date of regular appointment. The Court affirmed that regularization constitutes a fresh appointment effective from the date of the regularization order, not retrospectively. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that promotion is not an absolute right but is subject to rules, regulations, and the principle of seniority-cum-fitness. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that it lacked maintainability under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 due to the bar imposed by Article 212 regarding service matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can contractual service be counted towards seniority and promotion after a civil servant is regularized?
  • Does the regularization of a contract employee take effect retrospectively from the date of initial appointment?
  • Is the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 barred in service matters by Article 212?
  • Is promotion to a higher grade an absolute vested right of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz and others vs Mustafa Saeed and others2024 SCP 370, 2025 SCMR 216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-25
  public service commissionrecruitment processage relaxationexecutive discretionquota allocationre-advertisementtransparencymeritocracy
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil petitions for leave to appeal were filed against a High Court judgment that invalidated a Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC) selection process for Assistant Conservator of Forests posts. The controversy arose from SPSC issuing an addendum altering quota allocations, extending application deadlines without re-advertising, increasing vacancies from two to seven without public notification, and maintaining an unauthorised waiting list. Furthermore, an umbrella upper age relaxation of up to 15 years was granted under executive notification. The core legal questions were whether public recruitment processes could be validly altered through unadvertised addenda and whether excessive executive age relaxations comply with administrative law standards. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the High Court's decision to strike down the selection process and order fresh advertisements. The Court held that public recruitment must be transparent and competitive, requiring additional vacancies and changed terms to be publicly re-advertised. It further struck down the 15-year age relaxation, establishing that executive discretion must be exercised reasonably, proportionally, and without arbitrary misuse.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public service commission increase advertised vacancies or alter quota terms without re-advertising them for general public competition?
  • Does an excessive blanket relaxation of upper age limits by executive notification violate administrative standards of reasonableness and proportionality?
  • Under what conditions, if any, can a public service commission recommend candidates from a waiting list for newly created or unadvertised vacancies?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz alias Siko vs The State2024 YLR 1617 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-07
  narcotic possessionchain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtsafe custodyacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 2000 grams of charas. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to one and a half years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and the safe transmission of narcotic samples to the chemical examiner, and whether the delay in recording witness statements rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Upon review, the Court observed a significant 23-day delay in recording the statement of a key prosecution witness and noted that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and transmission of the samples from the place of occurrence to the Government analyst. Consequently, the Court held that the chain of custody was compromised, rendering the chemical examiner's report unreliable. Applying the principle that any break in the chain of custody entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in recording the statement of a prosecution witness under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal consequence of a broken chain of custody regarding narcotic samples on the reliability of a chemical examiner's report?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if the prosecution fails to prove the safe transmission of narcotic samples to the chemical analyst?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Ali Abro and others vs The State and others2024 SHC 600, 2024 PCRLJ 1813 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-30
  Qatl-i-Amddeath sentence commutationunproven motiveappreciation of evidenceFIR inconsistenciescriminal appealSection 302(b) PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for Qatl-i-Amd where the appellant was sentenced to death by the trial court. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite alleged inconsistencies in the FIR and evidence, and whether the death penalty was appropriate given the failure to prove the alleged motive. The Court held that the prosecution's case, supported by consistent eyewitness testimony, was reliable, and the minor discrepancies highlighted by the defense did not undermine the core narrative. The Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting the defense's theory that the deceased was killed by an accomplice. However, regarding the sentence, the Court applied the principle that where the motive for a crime remains unproven, particularly between closely related parties, the imposition of the death penalty is not justified. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the compensation order and granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the time of incident recorded in the FIR and the time stated in evidence invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when the prosecution fails to prove the motive for the crime?
  • Does a failure to prove motive justify the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Does the inclusion of minor discrepancies in cross-examination that are not in the FIR constitute a contradiction that destroys the credibility of a witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Ali & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1264 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-20Read full judgment →
• Ayab Khan and other vs Mst. Imrania and others2024 PHC 286, 2025 CLC 691 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-30Read full judgment →
• Awais Qarni vs The State and another2024 LHC 6320 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-07
  narcotics controlchain of custodyadmissibility of photographsdocumentary evidencebenefit of the doubtcriminal appealrecovery witnessQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, convicting the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to life imprisonment for allegedly possessing 20 kilograms of charas. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the police recovery witnesses, the integrity of the chain of custody of the case property, and the admissibility of an unauthenticated media photograph and derivative oral testimonies under the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984. The Lahore High Court held that material contradictions in police testimonies, unauthorized pre-trial documentation, and the use of an inadmissible photograph undermined the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the court laid down the principle that under the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, oral testimonies derived from an inadmissible document are equally inadmissible, and that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, with any evidentiary gaps extending a benefit to the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unauthenticated photograph from a media report is admissible as primary or secondary evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
  • Are statements of witnesses regarding an inadmissible document or photograph legally admissible as direct evidence?
  • Does a breach in the chain of custody of sample parcels render the government analyst's report inconsequential?
  • Must the prosecution stand on its own legs regardless of weaknesses in the defence's alternative plea?
  Read full judgment →
• Awais Aslam Ali through representative vs Capital Development Authority2024 YLR 1422 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-15Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Khan & others vs Collector Land Acquisition & others2024 PHC 158 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-18Read full judgment →
• Aurangzaib Alamgir vs Muhammad Sajid & others2024 SCP 419, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 53 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-15
  quashment of proceedingsinherent jurisdictionabuse of processIllegal Dispossession Actcriminal procedurecognizanceremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged a High Court order that dismissed a petition for the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether a High Court can summarily dismiss a quashment petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, solely because the trial court had already taken cognizance of the matter. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s dismissal was legally flawed as it failed to address the substantive grounds raised by the petitioner regarding the alleged abuse of process. The Court emphasized that while Section 561-A inherent jurisdiction is not a substitute for ordinary remedies like acquittal under Sections 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, it remains a curative power to prevent the abuse of judicial process. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on merits. The principle laid down is that the mere taking of cognizance by a trial court does not preclude the High Court from examining the merits of a quashment petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court summarily dismiss a quashment petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, solely on the ground that the trial court has taken cognizance?
  • Is the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, an alternative to the remedies provided under Sections 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What constitutes an 'abuse of process' warranting the exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Aun Akhter & another vs Ahmad Abdul Rehman, etc.2024 LHC 1654 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-09Read full judgment →
• Attock Cement Pakistan Ltd. and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 SHC 1302 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-02Read full judgment →
• Attique Rahman Phulpoto vs Federation of & others2024 SHC 28 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-23Read full judgment →
• Attaullah vs The State2024 SCP 161, 2024 SCMR 1210, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-04
  post-arrest baildoctrine of parityrule of consistencyfurther inquiryCustoms Actcriminal appealbail discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenges the High Court’s order refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was implicated in a case involving the theft of petroleum products under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail based on the doctrine of parity, given that co-accused persons with similar roles were previously granted bail, and whether the prosecution's case warrants further inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s role was not sufficiently distinguishable from the co-accused who were already granted bail, and that the determination of his direct or vicarious liability requires evidence at trial. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The key principle laid down is the doctrine of parity in criminal cases, which mandates that where the ascribed role of an accused is identical to that of co-accused persons who have received relief, the benefit of bail should be extended to ensure like cases are treated alike, subject to judicial assessment of the specific roles involved.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of parity apply to bail applications where co-accused with similar roles have already been granted bail?
  • What is the legal significance of the doctrine of further inquiry in the context of bail adjudication?
  • Is the discretion to grant bail considered punitive or preventative in nature?
  • Does the rule that bail is the rule and jail is the exception apply to cases involving the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Attaullah son Allah Diwayo Khushik and others vs The State2024 SHC 232 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-14
  post-arrest bailcustoms actoil pipeline pilferagesmugglingfurther inquirytransit goodsdiesel theft
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from post-arrest bail applications filed by multiple applicants booked in a criminal case relating to the en-route pilferage of transit diesel from an underground tunnel connected to PARCO's White Oil Pipeline. The core legal question is whether the applicants, having been assigned different roles ranging from masterminds and escorts to laborers, chowkidars, and mechanics, are entitled to post-arrest bail under the Customs Act. The court held that bail is to be denied to applicants who played direct, instrumental roles in the operation and were caught on the spot, whereas bail is to be granted to those whose involvement requires further inquiry, such as low-level laborers, chowkidars, and mechanics facing lesser statutory penalties. The key principle laid down is that while active participants and principal facilitators of economic offenses like pipeline diesel theft do not merit bail, ancillary workers whose direct complicity is debatable and punishable by lesser terms are entitled to further inquiry and post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused assigned a direct and instrumental role in the en-route pilferage of transit diesel is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the deployment of chowkidars and mechanics at a premises used for oil pipeline pilferage constitute a case for further inquiry warranting bail?
  • Whether a lowly laborer hired solely to operate a valve inside an underground pilferage tunnel makes out a case for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta-Ur-Rehman vs Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others2024 CLC 1705 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-13Read full judgment →
• Atta Ullah Jogezai vs Chief Secretary Government of Balochistan Quetta and others2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 172 · Balochistan Service Tribunal
  service appealposting and transferjunior against senior postcivil servantGIEDAservice tribunalBPS-20 post
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenged a notification transferring the appellant from the post of Managing Director of the Gwadar Industrial Estate Development Authority (GIEDA). The core legal question was whether the appellant, a BPS-19 officer, could legally hold the post of Managing Director, which is designated for BPS-20. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that both the appellant and the respondent were ineligible for the position as they were BPS-19 officers. The Tribunal emphasized that the practice of posting junior officers against senior posts violates established legal principles and Supreme Court precedents. It directed the government to appoint a qualified BPS-20 officer to the position within fifteen days. The judgment reaffirmed that government functionaries are bound to follow the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Furthermore, the Tribunal clarified that civil servants have no vested right to a specific posting or tenure, as transfers remain within the government's exclusive domain, provided they comply with service rules and public interest requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim a vested right to be posted at a particular station or for a specific tenure?
  • Is the posting of a junior officer against a senior post permissible under service laws?
  • Are government functionaries bound to follow the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1344 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-11
  police recruitmentcriminal antecedentsacquittalcivil service appointmentmoral turpitudedisqualificationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the Sindh Police Department's refusal to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner, a successful candidate for the post of Police Constable, citing his past involvement in a criminal case. The core legal question is whether a candidate, having been acquitted of criminal charges prior to the recruitment process, can be disqualified from public service solely based on that past record. The Court held that the refusal was unjustified, noting that acquittal in a criminal case effectively obliterates the allegations for all future purposes. The Court clarified that while the police force requires personnel of high integrity, mere involvement in a criminal case does not equate to guilt. The judgment establishes that, under the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, only a conviction for an offense involving moral turpitude serves as a valid disqualification for civil service. Consequently, the Court directed the Inspector General of Police to reconsider the petitioner's candidature, suggesting that if deemed unfit for the police force, he could be adjusted to a ministerial post.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate be disqualified from police service solely based on a past criminal case in which they were acquitted?
  • Does a past criminal record, without a conviction for moral turpitude, constitute a valid ground for denying appointment to a civil service post?
  • Is acquittal in a criminal case considered an exoneration for the purpose of recruitment into public service?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs Additional District Judge and others2024 CLC 57 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-11Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad and another vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2024 MLD 1282 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-07Read full judgment →
• Atta Khan and 2 others vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1448 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-01
  circumstantial evidenceretracted judicial confessionSection 342 CrPCattempted robberyQatl-i-Amdcorroborationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions of three appellants for murder and attempted robbery at a bank. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage, fingerprint analysis, call data records, and a retracted judicial confession by one co-accused. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession, the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt, and the procedural validity of recording an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in an "en bloc" format. The Court held that a retracted judicial confession is admissible if voluntary and corroborated by other evidence. It affirmed the convictions of two appellants, finding sufficient corroborative links, but acquitted the third appellant due to a lack of corroborating evidence. Regarding the procedural issue, the Court ruled that while "en bloc" questioning under Section 342 is permissible if all incriminating evidence is presented, the preferred practice is to put each piece of evidence to the accused through separate, simple questions to ensure fairness and compliance with the statute's spirit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession be relied upon to sustain a conviction?
  • Is the recording of an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in an "en bloc" format legally permissible?
  • What is the standard for relying on circumstantial evidence in a capital case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained against a co-accused based solely on a retracted judicial confession without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Elahi vs Allah Bachaya etc2022 LHC 3672, 2024 CLC 29 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-01Read full judgment →
• Atiq-ur-Rehman & others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 476, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1424 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14
  service lawrecruitment policyvested rightlimitation actrestoration of petitionwrit of mandamusnon-prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional petition seeking a declaration that the respondents' failure to issue a merit list and appoint the petitioners as Primary School Teachers (PST) was illegal, despite the petitioners having qualified the written test under the Teachers Recruitment Policy 2008. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel their appointment based on their selection. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners acquired a vested, indefeasible right to appointment merely by qualifying a recruitment test, and whether the application for restoration of the dismissed petition was filed within the period of limitation. The Court held that the application for restoration was time-barred due to the petitioners' failure to explain the significant delay. Furthermore, the Court held that a successful candidate in a recruitment process does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed. The notification inviting applications is merely an invitation to treat, and selection does not confer a legal right to the post. Consequently, the Court dismissed the restoration application, emphasizing that the law of limitation aids the vigilant, not the indolent.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate who qualifies a recruitment test acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed to the post?
  • Is a notification inviting applications for government employment considered an offer or an invitation to treat?
  • Does the law of limitation require strict construction regarding the explanation of delay for restoration applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Atiq Ahmad, Superintendent Anti-Terrorism Court No.1, Gilgit-Baltistan and another vs Provincial Government through Chief Secretary GB, Gilgit and 5 others2024 PLC (C.S.) 441 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-12-07
  writ petitionupgradationre-designationequal treatmentdiscriminationsuperintendentspecial courtssubordinate judiciary
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by Superintendents (BPS-17) serving in the Anti-Terrorism Court No.1 and the Custom and Banking Court of Gilgit-Baltistan, seeking the re-designation and upgradation of their posts to Staff Officers (BPS-18) on the analogy of similarly placed Superintendents in the subordinate judiciary. The core legal question was whether denying the petitioners the same upgradation granted to their counterparts in the lower judiciary constituted unlawful discrimination and violated the guarantee of equal treatment. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court accepted the petition, holding that since the qualifications, service grades, and nature of duties were identical, the petitioners were entitled to equal treatment under the law. The court laid down the principle that similarly placed employees performing the same functions cannot be subjected to discriminatory treatment regarding their service grades and designations without reasonable classification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees performing identical duties and possessing the same qualifications in special courts are entitled to upgradation on the analogy of counterparts in the subordinate judiciary?
  • Does the denial of equivalent service grades to similarly placed public servants amount to unconstitutional discrimination?
  • Can the constitutional writ jurisdiction be invoked to remove administrative disparities in official designations and pay scales?
  Read full judgment →
• Atif vs Muhammad Danish2024 SHC 1390 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-23Read full judgment →
• Atif Munawar vs Additional District Judge, etc2024 LHC 4099 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-24Read full judgment →
• Atif Khan vs Merja Din and others2024 YLR 1833 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-07Read full judgment →
• Atif Ali vs The State, etc2024 SCP 326, 2024 SCMR 2066 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-30
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequebusiness transactionfurther inquiryulterior motivesrendition of accounts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner in respect of an FIR registered under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, concerning a dishonoured cheque issued in connection with business transactions and an alleged loan. The core legal questions involved whether the disputed cheque was issued with dishonest intention for repayment or handed over as a blank guarantee, and whether a case for pre-arrest bail was made out. The Supreme Court held that given the previous business dealings, the filing of a prior suit for rendition of accounts by the petitioner, and the dispute regarding whether the cheque was given as a guarantee, the case called for further inquiry, and the apprehension of arrest with ulterior motives was well-founded. The Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner, establishing that where business disputes and conflicting claims regarding the issuance of a cheque as a guarantee exist, the matter falls within the ambit of further inquiry warranting pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 when the issuance of the disputed cheque as a guarantee or for the repayment of a loan requires further inquiry?
  • Does a prior civil suit for rendition of accounts between the parties affect the criminal proceedings under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed on the ground of malafide and apprehension of unjustified harassment by the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Ateeq Ur Rehman vs Election Commission of Pakistan through the Chief2024 PHC 38 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Asmatullah vs All Pakistan Wapda Hydro Workers Union, Balochistan (Cba)2024 PLC 46 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-31
  Constitutional PetitionMaintainabilityAlternate RemedyNational Industrial Relations CommissionTrade Union ElectionStatutory AppealFull Bench NIRC
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a Constitutional Petition challenging the eligibility of respondent No.3 to serve as an office bearer/provincial chairman of a workers' union and disputing a notification regarding union election committees. Prior to invoking the High Court's jurisdiction, the petitioner had approached a Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which returned the grievance petition on jurisdictional grounds. The High Court addressed the core legal question of whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal before the Full Bench of the NIRC under Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 is available. Dismissing the petition in limine, the Court held that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked as a matter of choice or bypassed simply because statutory procedures are perceived as lengthy. Where a statute provides an adequate self-contained appellate mechanism, an aggrieved party must exhaust that remedy rather than directly seeking extraordinary constitutional relief.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution when an alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 is available?
  • Can a party bypass an available statutory appellate forum on the ground that the procedure prescribed by law is lengthy?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a grievance rectifiable within the statutory appellate hierarchy of the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmat Ullah Khan and others vs The State and others2024 SCP 231, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 251, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 1119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-15
  kidnapping for ransomcall data recordransom recoveryabatement of appealbenefit of doubtdefence evidenceocular testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from criminal petitions filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed appeals against the Trial Court's judgment convicting the petitioners under Section 365-A/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the credibility of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of unverified call data records and unmarked ransom money, and the effect of the death of an appellant on criminal proceedings involving financial penalties. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the petitioners, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring contradictions, an uncorroborated recovery of ransom, and a credible defence version established through witnesses and official records. The key principles laid down include that unverified call data records and unmarked currency notes cannot form the basis of a conviction, that corroborative pieces of evidence like recoveries are irrelevant when primary ocular testimony is untrustworthy, and that under Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, an appeal against a sentence of fine or forfeiture of property does not abate upon the death of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unverified call data record lacking authorization, seals, and transcripts can be relied upon as credible evidence?
  • Does a criminal appeal against a sentence of fine or forfeiture of property abate upon the death of the appellant under Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can corroborative evidence such as recoveries sustain a conviction when the primary ocular account fails to inspire confidence?
  • Whether the failure of the police to mark or sign currency notes intended for ransom payment renders the recovery doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Asma Haleem vs Abdul Haseeb Chaudhry and others2024 SCP 249, 2024 SCMR 1714, 2025 PLJ SC 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-30
  partition suitfrivolous litigationvexatious litigationimposition of costscourt auctionabuse of processjudicial backlog
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a partition suit concerning a residential property in Islamabad. After a preliminary decree was issued, a court auctioneer conducted auction proceedings, which the petitioner objected to. Although the appellate court initially allowed the petitioner's appeal against the trial court's rejection of her objections, the Islamabad High Court reversed this decision in a revision petition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in dismissing the petition, found the litigation to be completely frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court process aimed at delaying the matter and depriving the petitioner's siblings and mother of the lawful auction proceeds. Emphasizing the severe backlog of over 2.2 million pending cases in Pakistan, the Court highlighted the necessity of rooting out speculative litigation to prevent the clogging of the justice system. Consequently, the Court declined leave to appeal and imposed exemplary costs on the petitioner to discourage such practices.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party can be penalized with exemplary costs for pursuing frivolous and vexatious litigation that delays the resolution of genuine disputes?
  • How does speculative litigation impact the overall administration of justice and the pendency of cases in Pakistani courts?
  • Under what provision of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 can the Supreme Court of Pakistan impose costs to curb the practice of instituting vexatious cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Aslam Khan vs The State2024 PHC 22, 2024 YLR 2467 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-12Read full judgment →
• Askari Bank Limited vs M/s. Khawaja Flat Glass Industries (Private) Limited,2024 LHC 5873 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-18Read full judgment →
• Askari Bank Limited vs M/s. Executive Aviation Pvt. Ltd. & others2024 SHC 916 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-10Read full judgment →
• Askari Bank Limited vs Muhammad Farooq & another2024 SHC 1286 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-22
  stay of criminal proceedingsbanking suitscivil and criminal liabilityinterlocutory orderwillful defaultcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant bank challenged an order of the Banking Court staying criminal proceedings against the respondent customer under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, pending the adjudication of two cross-banking suits before the High Court. The bank argued that civil and criminal remedies are distinct and can proceed simultaneously. The respondent contended that the revision was barred as an interlocutory appeal and that criminal liability for default was contingent upon the civil determination of liability. The High Court held that while the revision application was maintainable as the bar on interlocutory appeals under Section 22(6) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 does not strictly bar revision in criminal jurisdiction, the trial court's stay was legally sound. The Court ruled that where criminal charges of default and breach of obligations depend directly on the determination of civil liability and the exact quantum of outstanding debt, proceeding with the criminal trial beforehand would cause prejudice to the accused. The criminal proceedings were properly stayed until the civil suits are resolved.

  Questions settled

  • Whether criminal proceedings under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 should be stayed pending the adjudication of civil banking suits determining the underlying liability?
  • Does the bar on appeals against interlocutory orders under Section 22(6) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 preclude a criminal revision application against a stay order?
  • Can a customer be held criminally liable for default under Section 20 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 before the civil court determines the quantum of the debt?
  Read full judgment →
• Askari Bank Limited vs Hafiz Ghulam Murtaza2024 SHC 222, 2024 MLD 1267 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-11Read full judgment →
• Askar Ali vs The State and another2024 PLD Peshawar 48 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-27
  criminal appealsentencing discretioncapital punishmentremandself-defensetrial court judgmentprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Charsadda, which convicted the appellant under Section 302(c) and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in awarding a lesser sentence under Section 302(c) without providing cogent reasons, and whether it improperly inferred a plea of self-defense that the appellant had not raised. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court's judgment was unsustainable because it failed to comply with Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which mandates that a court must state reasons when awarding a sentence other than death for a capital offense. Furthermore, the court found the trial judge erred by introducing a self-defense theory not pleaded by the accused. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a fresh judgment based on the evidence, strictly adhering to the requirements of Section 367, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle established is that trial courts must provide explicit, convincing reasons for deviating from standard sentencing norms in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court required to provide reasons when awarding a sentence other than death for an offense punishable by death?
  • Can a trial court base its judgment on a plea of self-defense that was never raised by the accused during the trial?
  • Does a trial court have the authority to follow the reports of an investigating officer over the evidence produced before it during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Asim Sabir Qureshi vs Additional District Judge (East), Islamabad and others2024 IHC 258 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-18Read full judgment →
• Asim Ali vs The State2024 YLR 2234 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2023-10-02
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquiryCCTV identificationterrorism offencescriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Asim Ali, who was implicated in a case involving rioting and terrorism-related offences following an incident at Yadgar Chowk, Gilgit. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given his non-nomination in the FIR, the lack of incriminating recoveries, and the principle of consistency regarding co-accused persons. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that his case fell within the ambit of further inquiry. The Court observed that the petitioner was not nominated in the FIR, no recovery was made from him, and the prosecution failed to establish the reliability of the CCTV identification. Furthermore, the Court applied the rule of consistency, noting that a co-accused with more serious allegations had already been granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where a case against an accused is based on identification through CCTV footage without corroborative evidence, and where similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused with more serious allegations has been granted bail?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession made to police admissible if not recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the lack of recovery and non-nomination in the FIR entitle an accused to post-arrest bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ullah etc vs Mst. Gulzara Bibi etc2024 PHC 276 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-26Read full judgment →
• Asif alias Asad & three others vs The State & another2024 LHC 830, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 553, 2024 MLD 1672 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-04
  criminal appealunlawful assemblycommon objectrioting armed with deadly weaponineffective firingbenefit of doubtacquittal of co-accusedcorroborationfirearm recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rioting armed with deadly weapons. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the essential ingredients of an unlawful assembly, common object, motive, and whether the conviction of the appellants could be sustained when co-accused assigned identical roles had been acquitted, alongside the reliability of forensic and recovery evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the common object and motive, and that weapon recoveries failed to provide the necessary corroboration, particularly given the acquittal of co-accused assigned identical roles without independent corroborative evidence. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that where multiple co-accused are assigned identical roles of ineffective firing and some are acquitted, the remaining accused cannot be convicted without strong and independent corroboration. The appeals were accepted and the appellants were acquitted of the charges.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted under Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of a common object of an unlawful assembly?
  • Whether the acquittal of a co-accused assigned an identical role necessitates strong and independent corroboration before sustaining the conviction of remaining co-accused?
  • Does the recovery of a firearm that does not match crime empties according to forensic analysis provide valid corroboration to the prosecution's case?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to establish the alleged motive and all material corroborative pieces of evidence fall through?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali and others vs Mst. Zohra2024 PLD Sindh 108 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-22Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali & another vs The state through Prosecutor General Punjab2024 SCP 192, 2024 SCMR 1408, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 295 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-22
  narcoticschain of custodysafe transmissioncharasacquittalprocedural infirmitypolice rulessample analysis
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction and ten-year rigorous imprisonment of two petitioners under Section 9(c) read with Section 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA). The prosecution alleged the recovery of several kilograms of charas from the bodies of the petitioners during a vehicle search. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution established a continuous and safe chain of custody for the narcotic samples. The Supreme Court observed that the samples were dispatched to the laboratory beyond the 72-hour limit prescribed by Rule 4(2) of the CNSA (Government Analysts) Rules 2001 without explanation. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to produce the witness responsible for the transmission of samples and failed to properly record entries in Register No. XIX as required by Rule 22.70 of the Police Rules, 1934. Holding that the prosecution must prove every link in the chain of custody beyond reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants due to these fatal procedural infirmities.

  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ahmed Baloch vs The State2024 MLD 1309 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-28
  pre-arrest bailkidnappinglawful guardianshipcustody of minorsparental rightscriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was charged under Sections 363 and 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged kidnapping of his two daughters. The core legal question was whether a father can be charged with kidnapping his own children from lawful guardianship under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The Court reasoned that the alleged abductees had sworn affidavits stating they were living happily with their father, and the prosecution failed to record their statements under Section 161 or 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that a father, as a natural guardian, cannot be prosecuted for kidnapping his own children under Section 361 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as the provision is intended to protect the rights of parents regarding custody, and disputes over child custody between parents are essentially civil in nature rather than criminal offenses.

  Questions settled

  • Can a father be prosecuted for kidnapping his own children under Section 361 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the guardianship of a father cease when a minor child is in the custody of the mother?
  • Is a dispute between parents over the custody of minor children a valid ground for a criminal kidnapping charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashraf Din vs Ikramullah and another2024 MLD 1867 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-09-05Read full judgment →
• Ashraf Ali vs Sarfaraz Khamisani & others2024 SHC 1224 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-05Read full judgment →
• Ashir @ Waseem vs The State2024 SHC 256, 2024 YLR 2136 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-21
  sodomybenefit of the doubtdelay in FIRvideo forensic examinationsolitary statementcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 377-B and Section 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case was founded on an FIR registered after a delay of 23 days concerning an alleged incident of sodomy and criminal intimidation supported by a video clip. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on a solitary statement of the victim, unverified video evidence, and conflicting medical reports. The Sindh High Court held that unexplained delays, material contradictions in statements, lack of forensic analysis of the video USB, absence of corroborative medical evidence of sodomy, and a prior dispute between the parties created serious doubts in the prosecution's case. The court established that the heinousness of an offence cannot substitute for proof, and a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. The appeal was accepted, and the appellant was acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 damages the credibility of the prosecution case?
  • Can an unverified video clip produced via USB be relied upon as legal evidence without a forensic examination report?
  • Does the heinousness of an offence alone permit a conviction when the prosecution fails to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • Whether a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain Shah and others vs Azad Government of The State of Jammu & Kashmir through as Chief Secretary Muzaffarabad and others2024 PLJ AJ&K 20 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Ashiq Ali, & others vs Ghulam Ali (deceased) through legal heirs, etc2024 LHC 2058, 2024 PLJ Lahore 537 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-22Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Hussain and another vs Ghulam Nabi and another2024 SCP 209, 2024 SCMR 1560 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-12
  rented premisesevictionsublettinglandlord and tenantunauthorized partnershipremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had set aside concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court ordering the eviction of the respondent from a commercial premises. The core legal question concerns whether the respondent’s act of entering into a partnership with third parties to operate a clinic in the rented shop, without the landlords' consent or knowledge, constitutes unauthorized subletting under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record, particularly the respondent's admissions regarding the lack of notice to the landlords about the original tenant's death and the subsequent introduction of new partners into the premises. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, directing the High Court to re-evaluate the evidence and provide both parties an opportunity for a hearing. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts must rigorously evaluate evidence in rent disputes regarding unauthorized subletting and the necessity of landlord consent.

  Questions settled

  • Does entering into a partnership agreement with third parties to operate a business in a rented premises without the landlord's consent constitute subletting?
  • Is a tenant required to inform the landlord of the death of the original tenant and the subsequent change in occupancy?
  • Can a High Court set aside an eviction order without properly evaluating the evidence regarding unauthorized subletting?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashba Kamran vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, President‟s Secretariat, Islamabad and others2024 LHC 3733, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1325, 2025 PLJ Lahore 70 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-06
  quo warrantopublic officedelegated legislationstatutory interpretationmerit-based appointmentultra viresNADRAconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the appointment of the Chairman of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioner questioned the validity of Rule 7A of the NADRA (Appointment and Emoluments of Chairman and Members) Rules, 2020, which facilitated the direct, non-advertised appointment of a serving officer. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government, as a delegatee, possessed the authority to bypass the qualification-based evaluation mandated by the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000. The Court held that the appointment was without "authority of law." It ruled that delegated legislation cannot override the primary enactment or dispense with statutory requirements for merit-based selection. The Court affirmed that quo warranto jurisdiction empowers it to scrutinize whether an appointment conforms to the primary statute. Consequently, the appointment was declared illegal as it exceeded the delegated authority, violating the legislative intent that required qualification-based evaluation for such public offices. The principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius was applied to reject the claim of implied power to make direct appointments.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court in quo warranto jurisdiction examine whether an appointment made by the executive exceeds the scope of delegated authority under the primary statute?
  • Is a rule framed under delegated legislation valid if it permits direct appointment to a public office in a manner inconsistent with the qualification-based evaluation prescribed by the parent Ordinance?
  • Does the power to appoint a Chairman of a statutory authority under the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 include the implied power to make direct, unadvertised appointments?
  Read full judgment →
• Asgher Hussain Manikia vs R.O Na-238 & Another2024 SHC 62 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-12Read full judgment →
• Asghar vs The State and another2024 YLR 363 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-08
  pre-arrest bailcross-versiondelayed FIRfurther inquirycriminal proceduresuppression of injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 352/2022, registered at Police Station Kur, District Faisalabad, for offences under sections 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the existence of a cross-version and the complainant's delay in lodging the FIR. The court observed that the four-day delay in filing the FIR, without explanation, suggested deliberation and consultation. Furthermore, the court noted that the case involved two versions, with the petitioner claiming the complainant party were the aggressors, and that the complainant had suppressed the injuries sustained by the petitioner's side. Holding that the determination of the aggressor required further inquiry at trial, the court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where an FIR is delayed without explanation and there exists a cross-version where the complainant suppresses injuries of the opposing party, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the case involves two conflicting versions of the incident?
  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused in an FIR necessitate further inquiry into the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Khan vs Provincial Government and others2024 PLC (C.S.) 1041 · Gilgit Baltistan Service Tribunal · 2024-03-25
  transfer and postingcivil servantadministrative discretionjudicial reviewservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a service appeal filed by Asghar Khan against a notification issued by the Gilgit Baltistan Secretariat transferring him from the post of Assistant Commissioner Danyore to Assistant Commissioner Shigar. The core legal question concerns whether the frequent transfer of a civil servant constitutes mala fide action or violates service rights, and to what extent administrative transfers are subject to judicial review. The Gilgit Baltistan Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that posting and transfer of a civil servant fall within the exclusive administrative domain of the executive to meet service exigencies, and a civil servant has no vested right to claim posting at a particular place. The Tribunal established the principle that courts and tribunals should exercise utmost restraint and avoid interfering with routine administrative transfer decisions unless clear mala fide or a violation of law is established.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to claim a posting or transfer to a particular place of choice?
  • Are routine posting and transfer decisions of executive authorities amenable to judicial review by service tribunals?
  • What is the scope of interference by courts in executive functions regarding the transfer of government officials?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs Muhammad Asghar2024 LHC 4161, 2024 PLJ Lahore 863, 2025 MLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-03Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali Kamboh vs The State2024 SHC 220 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-13
  capital punishmentrape and murdereyewitness testimonyminor discrepanciesmedical evidenceforensic corroborationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and confirmation case arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Asghar Ali Kamboh, for the offenses of child abduction, rape, and murder of a minor girl, sentencing him to death on multiple counts. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the impact of minor discrepancies in evidence, and the corroboration of ocular testimony with medical and forensic evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness accounts, corroborated by medical evidence of sexual assault and asphyxia, forensic reports detecting human semen, and timely FIR registration. The Court laid down that minor discrepancies and variations in testimony, arising from a lapse of time between the incident and the recording of evidence, do not destroy the credibility of otherwise trustworthy eyewitnesses, and that heinous offenses proved by consistent ocular and medical evidence warrant the maintenance of capital punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies and variations in the testimony of eyewitnesses resulting from a long time lapse impair the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
  • Can ocular testimony regarding rape and murder be sustained when corroborated by medical evidence, post-mortem findings, and the detection of human semen?
  • Whether the absence of motive or the presence of a delayed FIR is sufficient to discard a consistent and natural prosecution case in heinous offenses?
  • Does the commission of rape and murder of a minor child under aggravating circumstances warrant the affirmation of the death penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali (deceased) through LRs vs Ahmad Ali (deceased) through LRs, etc2024 LHC 1838, 2024 PLJ Lahore 622 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Asfandyar Khan vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2024 PHC 268 · Peshawar High Court
  delegated legislationretrospective operationcivil servantappointment quotaprospective applicationsubordinate legislationvested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of the respondent department to appoint the petitioner to a junior clerk position under the quota for children of incapacitated civil servants. The petitioner's father retired on medical grounds in 1997, whereas the relevant amendment to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, which introduced this quota, was notified in 2016. The core legal question was whether this delegated legislation operated retrospectively to cover employees who retired before the amendment. The Court held that the amendment operates only prospectively. The ratio of the decision is that delegated legislation cannot be given retrospective effect unless the parent statute expressly confers such power. Examining Section 26 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973, the Court found no such authorization. Consequently, the Court affirmed that subordinate legislation is limited in scope and cannot retroactively alter vested rights or apply to events predating its enactment. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner's father retired prior to the amendment's notification, rendering the petitioner ineligible for the benefit.

  Questions settled

  • Can delegated legislation be given retrospective effect in the absence of express authorization in the parent statute?
  • Does an amendment to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, regarding employment quotas for children of incapacitated civil servants, apply retrospectively?
  • Does the power to make rules under Section 26 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973, include the power to legislate retrospectively?
  Read full judgment →
• Asadullah vs Allah Dad and 2 others2024 PLD Balochistan 154 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-30
  hostile witnessunfavourable witnesscross-examination of own witnessrevision petitionstatement under section 161 CrPCcredibility of witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition was filed under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pishin, which declined the prosecution and complainant's request to declare an eye-witness (PW-4) hostile and permit his cross-examination. The core legal question was whether a witness who gives testimony contrary to their previous statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, but without showing animosity or deliberate suppression of truth, qualifies as a hostile witness rather than an unfavourable witness. The Balochistan High Court held that a witness who merely gives an unfavourable statement without showing a hostile demeanor or a desire to conceal the truth cannot be declared hostile, and permitting cross-examination of such a witness under Article 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 is a matter of judicial discretion. The court established that an unfavourable witness is distinct from a hostile witness, and discrepancies alone do not justify cross-examination by the calling party unless the witness exhibits hostility or suppresses the truth.

  Questions settled

  • What is the distinction between a hostile witness and an unfavourable witness under criminal law?
  • Whether a witness can be declared hostile merely because their testimony conflicts with a previous statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it a matter of right or judicial discretion for a party to cross-examine its own witness under Article 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • What conditions must be established to entitle a party to invoke Article 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 for cross-examining its own witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Asadullah Khawaja vs Investment Corporation of Pakistan (ICP)2024 SHC 616 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
• Asadullah and Sajjad Ali vs The State2024 SHC 188 · Sindh High Court
  murderextra-judicial confessionsupplementary statementmodern devices evidencevideo recording admissibilitybenefit of the doubtcommon intentionconcealment of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences of the appellants recorded by the trial court under sections 302(b), 201, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value of supplementary/further statements under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the admissibility and proof of extra-judicial confessions and video recordings obtained through modern devices under section 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and the extent of corroboration required to sustain capital convictions. The Sindh High Court held that further statements have no independent sanctity unless corroborated, and that video recordings/extra-judicial confessions must strictly satisfy forensic verification and procedural safeguards to be admissible. Consequently, the court acquitted two appellants due to doubtful evidence, altered the conviction of a third appellant to section 201 PPC while setting aside his murder conviction, and maintained the conviction and sentence of the main appellant for murder, laying down principles regarding the evaluation of modern device evidence and benefit of doubt in criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal value and evidentiary weight of a further or supplementary statement recorded under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the mandatory requirements and procedural modes for proving an audio or video recording obtained through modern devices under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can an extra-judicial confession and video statement made to the police form the sole basis of a capital conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Whether an accused who was initially unaware of the principal offender's plan can be held vicariously liable with the aid of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Ullah vs The State2024 MLD 1341 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2023-08-17
  post-arrest bailabductionrule of consistencysupplementary statementbigamycriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Asad Ullah, who was implicated in a case involving alleged abduction and bigamy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was not named in the initial FIR, was implicated only via a delayed supplementary statement, and the alleged victim had denied abduction in separate judicial proceedings. The Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit Baltistan held that the petitioner is entitled to bail. The Court observed that the alleged victim had recorded a statement before a Magistrate asserting that she married the co-accused of her own free will and was not abducted, thereby undermining the prosecution's case regarding the alleged offences. Furthermore, the Court applied the rule of consistency, noting that other co-accused facing similar allegations had already been granted bail. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, emphasizing that further incarceration would serve no useful purpose as the investigation was complete.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted bail?
  • Can a statement by an alleged victim denying abduction in separate judicial proceedings undermine the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail when they were not nominated in the initial FIR and were only implicated through a delayed supplementary statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Qaiser vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Through Chief2024 PHC 26 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →