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.

• Asad Khan vs The State2024 PHC 160 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-16Read full judgment →
• Asad Ali Toor vs Messrs Axact Private Limited through Authorized Officer2024 PCRLJ 1526 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-19
  freedom of speechcriminal defamationinherent jurisdictionquashing of proceedingsabuse of processfundamental rightsSection 561-A CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, a journalist, challenged criminal defamation proceedings initiated against him by employees of a private company. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash the complaint, despite the general rule requiring the accused to first seek relief before the trial court under Section 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that while the High Court should not ordinarily bypass trial court remedies, it possesses the power to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice in exceptional circumstances. Recognizing that the case directly implicated the fundamental right to freedom of speech under Article 19 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, and finding the complaint vague, unauthorized by the company, and lacking prima facie evidence of criminal harm, the Court quashed the proceedings. The principle laid down is that courts must rigorously protect freedom of speech and may intervene under Section 561-A when litigation is frivolous or constitutes an abuse of process.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings before the accused has approached the trial court under Section 249-A or 265-K?
  • Does the fundamental right to freedom of speech under Article 19 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 constitute an exceptional ground for the High Court to intervene in pending criminal defamation proceedings?
  • Is a criminal complaint for defamation maintainable when filed by employees without authorization from the company allegedly defamed?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Abbas vs Government of The Punjab through Secretary Co-operative2024 PLC (C.S) 142 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-20
  merit listwaiting listrecruitmentadministrative lapseequality clausewrit jurisdictionsubstitute candidate
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for appointment as a Sub-Inspector (BS-11), arguing he was next in merit and entitled to the position after selected candidates failed to join. The core legal question was whether the department could deny the petitioner's appointment due to administrative delays and the subsequent expiration of the merit list, despite the petitioner having timely agitated his grievance. The Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable, noting that the department and the Punjab Public Service Commission were responsible for the administrative lapses that prevented the petitioner's appointment while the merit list was valid. The Court emphasized that a candidate cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act. The key principle laid down is that when selected candidates fail to join, the department is obligated to consider the next candidates on the merit list to fill vacant posts rather than leaving them empty. Furthermore, denying appointment to a qualified candidate while appointing others similarly situated constitutes discrimination in violation of the equality clause of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department deny appointment to a candidate next in the merit list due to the expiration of the merit list if the candidate timely agitated their grievance?
  • Is a candidate entitled to be appointed as a substitute when selected candidates fail to join their duties?
  • Can a candidate be penalized for administrative lapses or delays on the part of the recruiting department or the Public Service Commission?
  • Does the appointment of one waiting candidate while denying another similarly situated candidate constitute discrimination under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Ary Communications Ltd vs Muhammad Tahir & another2024 SHC 976 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-19Read full judgment →
• Arslan Buriro s/o Habib-ur-Rehamn vs Rustam Ali Tunio s/o Eid2024 SHC 144 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Arslan Ali vs The State through Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore and another2024 YLR 2801 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-04
  suspension of sentencestatutory delaylife imprisonmentpost-conviction bailcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking suspension of the sentence awarded to the petitioner, Arslan Ali, who was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 alongside other sections in a private complaint arising from FIR No. 253/2019. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his life imprisonment sentence under the statutory grounds of Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the non-conclusion of his appeal within two years, and whether he fell within any exceptions disentitling him to such relief. The Lahore High Court held that since the delay in deciding the appeal was not attributable to the petitioner and he did not fall within the category of a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal, the provisions of Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandated the suspension of his sentence. The key principle laid down is that where an appellant undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment has not had his appeal decided within the statutory period of two years through no fault of his own, and does not fall under the statutory exceptions, the suspension of his sentence becomes a matter of right under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the suspension of sentence becomes mandatory under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an appeal is not decided within two years through no fault of the appellant?
  • Does a petitioner convicted of murder fall under the exceptions to Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 merely due to the nature of the injuries attributed to him?
  • Are the principles of bail applicable when considering a petition for the suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshan S/O Muhammad Nasir vs The State2024 SHC 724 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-03
  pre-arrest bailrapeprohibitory clausemala fidetentative assessmentstatement of victim
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 376/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged rape. The trial court had earlier declined his bail application, noting that the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The applicant contended that he had contracted a verbal marriage with the victim and filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, arguing false implication and lack of mala fide. The State and the complainant opposed the bail, highlighting the seriousness of the charge, the medical evidence, and the victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant or victim for false implication. The court recalled the interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the solitary statement of the rape survivor is sufficient for a tentative assessment at the bail stage and that offenses falling under the prohibitory clause without proof of mala fide do not warrant pre-arrest protection.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted in a heinous offense like rape punishable under the prohibitory clause in the absence of proved mala fide?
  • Is the solitary statement of a rape survivor sufficient to form a tentative opinion against the accused at the bail stage?
  • Does a delay in lodging the FIR in sexual assault cases become a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether a plea of verbal marriage and subsequent filing of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights establishes mala fide on the part of the complainant in a rape case?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Sharif and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 170, 2025 PLD Islamabad 177 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-08-26
  multiple FIRsquashing of FIRsfreedom of expressionterritorial jurisdictionsame transactionabuse of processprotective bailcybercrime investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses consolidated petitions filed by journalists challenging the registration of multiple FIRs across various provinces for the same alleged cause of action, specifically regarding vlogs and media statements. The core legal questions concerned whether multiple FIRs for a single incident are permissible, the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts to quash FIRs registered in other provinces, and the interplay between the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act. The Court held that registering multiple FIRs for the same incident constitutes an abuse of process and violates constitutional rights. While the Court clarified it lacks the authority to quash FIRs outside its territorial jurisdiction, it established that only the first FIR is valid, with subsequent ones to be treated as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment lays down comprehensive principles, including that an arrest in one case is deemed an arrest in all cases of the same subject matter, and mandates that investigations for cyber-related offences be referred to the Federal Investigation Agency.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court quash FIRs registered within the territorial jurisdiction of another High Court?
  • Does the registration of multiple FIRs for the same incident constitute an abuse of process?
  • Are offences under the Pakistan Penal Code automatically transformed into offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act simply because they were committed using an information system?
  • If an accused is arrested in one case, does that arrest count as an arrest in all other pending cases involving the same subject matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mirza vs Darsyus T. Sethna and another2024 PLJ Karachi 57 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-25Read full judgment →
• Arshad Hussain vs The State2024 SHC 1232, 2025 PCRLJ 881 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-16
  criminal appealmurderrobberyconfirmation referencethird judge opinioneyewitness testimonymitigating circumstancessentence reductiondeath sentencelife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved a criminal appeal and a confirmation reference arising from a conviction for murder and robbery, where the appellant was sentenced to death. A Division Bench had a difference of opinion, leading to a reference to a third judge. The core legal questions revolved around the reliability of the sole eyewitness, the impact of minor contradictions in evidence, and the presence of mitigating circumstances for sentencing. The court, as the third judge, agreed with the opinion upholding the conviction, finding the sole eyewitness reliable and minor contradictions negligible. However, it found mitigating circumstances, specifically that the intention was robbery and only a single shot was fired, which was sufficient to reduce the death sentence. The court held that the quality of evidence, not quantity, is paramount, and a single mitigating circumstance can warrant reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment. Consequently, the conviction under Section 302(b) PPC was maintained, but the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on the solitary evidence of a trustworthy eyewitness?
  • Are minor contradictions in prosecution evidence sufficient to discard the case?
  • Does medical evidence always take precedence over direct ocular evidence?
  • What is the role of a third judge when there is a difference of opinion in a criminal appeal and confirmation reference?
  • Can a single mitigating circumstance be sufficient to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali vs The State and others2024 MLD 212 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-17
  qatl-i-amdocular evidencemedical evidencebenefit of doubtchain of custodyforensic science laboratorycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mehdi Hassan. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular testimony, the consistency of the prosecution's narrative with medical evidence, and the validity of forensic recoveries. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the eye-witnesses made dishonest improvements, their testimony contradicted medical evidence regarding the firing angle, and the chain of custody for forensic evidence was broken. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key principles laid down are that in cases involving a single accused, courts must rigorously scrutinize evidence rather than assuming substitution is rare; that once the ocular account is disbelieved, corroborative evidence like recoveries cannot sustain a capital conviction; and that medical evidence contradicting the prosecution's version of the occurrence significantly undermines the credibility of eye-witness testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Does medical evidence contradicting the prosecution's version of the firing angle undermine the credibility of eye-witnesses?
  • Can a conviction for a capital charge be sustained on recovery evidence alone if the ocular account is disbelieved?
  • Is the prosecution required to establish the safe custody of crime articles sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to rely on positive forensic reports?
  • Should a trial court assume that substitution of a single accused is a rare phenomenon without critically evaluating the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali s /o Moj Khan vs The State2024 SHC 216 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-14
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeSection 489-F PPCprohibitory clausenon-bailable offencejudicial discretiondormant account
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dishonour of cheques issued to a complainant in a business transaction. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail despite the offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that while the offence under Section 489-F is not within the prohibitory clause, this does not grant an automatic right to bail. The court emphasized that bail in non-bailable offences remains a concession, not a right, and judicial discretion must be exercised based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Finding that the accused had issued cheques from a dormant account with discrepancies in the amount written in words and figures, the court concluded that the accused failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to conclude proceedings within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Is the grant of bail in non-bailable offences a right or a concession?
  • Can a court deny bail for an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the cheques were issued from a dormant account?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Abbas vs Anti-Corruption Establishment Sargodha, etc2024 LHC 5847, 2025 PCRLJ 874 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-18
  quashing of FIRAnti-Corruption EstablishmentTatima Shajrajoint Khataconstitutional jurisdictionmalafide investigationLand Record Manuals
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, and 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, relating to the preparation of a Tatima Shajra by a Patwari in a joint Khata. The core legal question revolved around whether an administrative irregularity or the carving out of a Tatima in a joint property without prior partition constitutes a criminal offense falling within the mandate of the Anti-Corruption Establishment in the absence of any allegation of bribery. The Lahore High Court held that the preparation of a Tatima based on registered deeds in accordance with the Land Record Manuals does not constitute a criminal offense, and that weaponizing the criminal justice system for civil disputes or utilizing an anti-corruption agency for mere procedural irregularities amounts to an abuse of process. The court laid down the principle that the Anti-Corruption Establishment cannot exceed its mandate to investigate civil or departmental irregularities devoid of any element of corruption or illegal gratification, and that High Courts may quash FIRs under Article 199 where investigations are initiated mala fide or without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash an FIR under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan where the investigation is launched mala fide or without jurisdiction?
  • Does the preparation of a Tatima Shajra in a joint Khata by a revenue official without formal partition proceedings constitute a criminal offense under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Can the Anti-Corruption Establishment investigate mere departmental irregularities or procedural deviations by a public servant in the absence of any allegation of receiving illegal gratification?
  • Whether criminal proceedings can be initiated regarding a subject matter that is already the subject of pending revenue and civil appeals between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Arooj Hammad vs D.G. L.D.A. and others2024 PLC (C.S.) 681 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-06
  constitutional petitionrule 17-adeceased employeefamily member appointmentresignationlahore development authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged an order of the Lahore Development Authority rejecting the petitioner's application for employment under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The petitioner's father had died while in service, and her brother had previously been appointed under the said rule but later resigned. The core legal question was whether another family member could claim appointment under Rule 17-A after the initial appointee had availed the benefit and subsequently resigned. The Lahore High Court held that the benefit under Rule 17-A can only be availed once by a single member of the deceased employee's family and cannot be re-agitated or transferred after being exercised with family consent. The court laid down the principle that the right to employment under Rule 17-A is exhausted once a child or widow of the deceased civil servant is accommodated, and subsequent resignation of that appointee does not revive the right for other family members.

  Questions settled

  • Can another family member claim appointment under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 after the initially accommodated member resigns?
  • Whether the right to employment under Rule 17-A can be exercised more than once for the family of a deceased civil servant?
  • Does the resignation of a candidate appointed under Rule 17-A revive the claim for other legal heirs of the deceased employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Arif Samoo @ Arif Ali and others vs The State and others2024 SHC 1064 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-23
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailrapefurther inquirydelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application comprises three connected matters arising from a single FIR registered under sections 376, 506/2, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of rape and criminal intimidation. The core legal question was whether the accused persons were entitled to pre-arrest and post-arrest bail in light of the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, an admitted civil dispute over inheritance between the parties, and implausible circumstances regarding the commission of the alleged offense. The Sindh High Court held that the case called for further inquiry into the guilt of the applicants under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting an unexplained four-month delay, an admitted property dispute, and contradictions regarding the victim's awareness of acts committed while allegedly unconscious. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail of the relevant applicants and admitted the post-arrest applicant to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR combined with an admitted property dispute constitutes grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are accused persons entitled to pre-arrest and post-arrest bail when the medical report is unsupportive and the circumstances of the alleged crime appear inherently improbable?
  • Whether allegations of rape and criminal intimidation under sections 376 and 506/2 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrant the denial of bail when the prosecution's case requires further probing at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Arbelo alias Arbab Kosh vs The State2024 SHC 654, 2024 PCRLJ 2028 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-31
  Karo Karihonor killingcompromiseQisas and Diyatcompounding of offencecriminal appealSection 345 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, convicted for the murder of his stepsister and illegal possession of arms, sought acquittal through a compromise with the victim's legal heirs while his appeal was pending. The core legal question was whether such a compromise is permissible in a case involving 'Karo Kari' (honor killing) where the legal heirs exhibited total indifference to the victim's death and failed to participate in the prosecution. The Court held that the compromise could not be accepted. It established that under Section 345(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, compounding an offence committed on the pretext of 'Karo Kari' is not a routine matter. The court possesses the authority to refuse such a compromise after examining the facts and circumstances. The Court determined that the legal heirs' failure to report the crime or assist in the investigation rendered them incompetent to compound the offence, as their conduct suggested either complicity or fear, and allowing the compromise would improperly sanctify violence rooted in patriarchal customs.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court refuse to accept a compromise between the convict and legal heirs in a murder case involving the pretext of Karo Kari?
  • Does the conduct of legal heirs in failing to report a crime or participate in the investigation affect their competency to compound an offence?
  • Is the court's leave mandatory for compounding an offence while an appeal against conviction is pending?
  • Does Section 345(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grant the court discretion to reject a compromise in honor-based murder cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Arbab Ibrahim Rahimoon vs S.S.P Umerkot and others2024 SHC 1138 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-26
  registration of FIRJustice of the Peaceprivate complainttheft of school propertycriminal miscellaneous application
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application challenging an order passed by the Ex Officio Justice of the Peace/Additional Sessions Judge-I, Umerkot, which dismissed his application under Section 22-A and B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the registration of an FIR against private respondents regarding the alleged theft of school building materials. The core legal question was whether the Justice of the Peace erred in dismissing the application for registration of an FIR. The court noted that during the hearing, the applicant's counsel stated that the applicant may be permitted to file a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the concerned Magistrate. Consequently, the court disposed of the application by allowing the applicant to approach the concerned Magistrate with a private complaint, directing that it be entertained and decided within a reasonable time in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Ex Officio Justice of the Peace is justified in dismissing an application for the registration of an FIR when police and local reports do not support the applicant's allegations?
  • Can an applicant file a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the dismissal of an application for the registration of an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Arbab Azam & others vs Kh. Habib-ur-Rehman & others2024 SC AJK 42, 2025 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 54 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-07-04
  service tribunalsubordinate judiciarystatutory interpretationmandatory procedurestatus quojurisdictionsaving clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses appeals involving a common legal proposition regarding the constitution and establishment of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal was lawfully constituted under Section 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 2016, and whether the Chief Justice of the High Court possessed the independent power to constitute the Tribunal. The Court held that while the establishment of the Tribunal by the President under Section 3(1) was saved by the general savings clause, the power of the Chief Justice under Section 3(3) to nominate judges is a conditional prerequisite, and the High Court lacked the authority to itself constitute the Tribunal or bypass the statutory procedure. Reaffirming the principle that when a particular method for the performance of an act is prescribed by law, it must be performed in that exact manner or not at all, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and promotional orders issued in violation of interim status quo orders, ruling that all pending matters before the Tribunal shall be deemed pending until validly constituted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chief Justice of the High Court is empowered to independently constitute the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal under Section 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 2016?
  • Are the provisions of Section 3(1) and Section 3(3) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 2016 interlinked and conditional upon each other?
  • What is the legal effect of violating an interim status quo order issued by the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Does the savings clause under Section 9 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 2016 protect prior executive notifications regarding the establishment of the Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqib Ali Mirani vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 394 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-07Read full judgment →
• Aqeel alias Kaka, etc. vs The State, etc.2024 LHC 1224, 2024 PCRLJ 1721 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-21
  Anti-Terrorism Actpersonal enmityjurisdiction transferscheduled offencesmens reastatutory interpretationcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order of the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) refusing to transfer a criminal case to a court of ordinary jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether a violent incident arising from personal enmity, where stray bullets incidentally struck the outer wall of a court building, constitutes "terrorism" triable by an ATC under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was legally unsustainable and ordered the case transferred to the Sessions Court. The Court established that for an act to constitute terrorism, it must be committed with the specific design or purpose defined in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, rather than being a byproduct of personal vendetta. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Third Schedule of the Act, which lists "firing in the court premises" as a scheduled offence, must be interpreted narrowly. It cannot be extended to include firing in the surroundings or vicinity of a court, as courts lack the authority to expand the scope of special penal statutes beyond their literal meaning.

  Questions settled

  • Does a violent act committed due to personal enmity constitute terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can a court expand the scope of the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to include firing in the surroundings of a court?
  • Is the intent or motivation behind an act the determinative factor for classifying it as terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Does the incidental hitting of a court's outer wall by bullets during a private dispute satisfy the criteria for "firing in the court premises" under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwaruddin Rajper vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 596 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-23Read full judgment →
• Anwar Saeed vs Dr. Azhar Khan Jadoon and others2024 PHC 32 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-22Read full judgment →
• Anwar Mansoor Khan vs Special Court, Islamabad, through its Registrar2024 IHC 216, 2025 PLD Islamabad 168 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-30Read full judgment →
• Anwar Khan and others vs Bahadar Jan and others2024 PHC 82, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 76 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-01Read full judgment →
• Anwar Faheem alias Anoo alias Zeeshan vs The State2024 MLD 762 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-23Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali and others vs Mst. Saeeda Bibi and others2024 PHC 236, 2025 CLC 506 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-06-24Read full judgment →
• Antoine Ponce and Daniel Riopel vs Societe D'investissements Rheaume Ltee, Michel Rheaume Investissement Ltee, Agence Andre Beaulne Ltee And 9098-3289 Quebec Inc2024 CLD 58 · Supreme Court of Canada · 2023-10-27Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali and another vs The State2024 MLD 1848 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-23
  pre-arrest bailmurderocular evidencemedical evidenceinvestigating officer opiniontentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal bail applications seeking pre-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail despite being nominated in the FIR with specific roles and the existence of prima facie evidence connecting them to the crime. The Court held that the applications should be dismissed, recalling the interim bail previously granted. The Court established that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of evidence is permissible, and a deeper appraisal—such as resolving conflicts between ocular and medical evidence—is unwarranted. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the opinion of an Investigating Officer, including placing an accused in column No. 2 of a charge sheet, is not binding on the Court, which retains the power to take cognizance independently. Finally, the Court reiterated that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy not intended for routine cases, particularly where heinous offenses are involved and prima facie evidence exists.

  Questions settled

  • Is the opinion of an Investigating Officer to exclude an accused from a charge sheet binding upon the Court?
  • Can a court conduct a deep appraisal of evidence, such as resolving conflicts between medical and ocular accounts, at the bail stage?
  • Is pre-arrest bail an appropriate remedy in routine criminal cases involving heinous offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali & Others vs The State & Another2024 SHC 942 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-06
  cognizanceB-Class police reportplea of alibiinvestigation stagequashing of orderCDR evidencejudicial magistrate powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application arises out of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate declining a final police report submitted under B-Class and taking cognizance against the applicants in an FIR registered under sections 324, 506(2), 504 and 337-H (ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved were whether a Judicial Magistrate is bound by a police report recommending the disposal of a case under B-Class, and whether a plea of alibi can be adjudicated at the investigation stage. The Sindh High Court held that a Judicial Magistrate is not bound by the findings or recommendations of the investigating officer in a report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and possesses independent powers under section 190 to take cognizance. The court further held that a plea of alibi is a matter of defense requiring cogent evidence to be proved during trial, and investigating officers cannot prematurely exonerate an accused based on an unproved plea of alibi or inconclusive CDR evidence. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, upholding the Magistrate's order.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Judicial Magistrate bound to accept a police report recommending the disposal of a case under B-Class?
  • Can an investigating officer decide a plea of alibi and exonerate an accused during the investigation stage?
  • Whether statements of defense witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be used to establish a plea of alibi at the pre-trial stage?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with a Magistrate's order taking cognizance under its inherent jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Anser Mehmood Awan and 4 others vs Mujahid Hussain Naqvi and 82024 CLC 693 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-06-01Read full judgment →
• Anopo @ Anopchand son of Nanak vs The State2024 SHC 696, 2025 YLR 1021 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-24
  pre-arrest bailprohibition orderfurther inquiryabscondence from spotrecovery from possessionrule of consistency
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant Anopo @ Anopchand seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant, who was nominated in the FIR and alleged to have fled from the scene while riding on a motorcycle from which contraband was recovered, is entitled to pre-arrest bail when no recovery was made from his exclusive possession and the maximum punishment for the offense does not exceed three years. The Sindh High Court held that the case against the applicant calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as his mere presence on the motorcycle without any recovery from his person and the likelihood of a lesser sentence make him a fit case for bail, particularly on the ground of consistency with a co-accused who was already granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where no incriminating recovery is attributed directly to an accused who allegedly fled the scene, and the maximum penalty does not fall within the prohibitory clause, pre-arrest bail should be confirmed to prevent unnecessary pre-trial incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is nominated in the FIR but no incriminating article is recovered from his exclusive possession?
  • Does an offense carrying a maximum punishment of three years warrant confirmation of pre-arrest bail pending trial?
  • Whether an accused who allegedly fled from the scene of the crime is entitled to bail on the ground of consistency with a co-accused who has already been granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Anoop Kumar and others vs The State & others2024 SHC 1180 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-29
  pre-arrest bailNational Accountability Ordinance 1999misappropriation of pension fundsAccountability Courttentative assessmentmala fideembezzlementfinancial corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  The High Court of Sindh considered multiple criminal bail applications seeking the confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail in a Reference pending before Accountability Court-II, Hyderabad, initiated under Sections 18(g) and 24(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The prosecution alleged that the applicants—comprising District Accounts Office officials, Agriculture Department officers, bank employees, and private contractors—misappropriated public pension funds exceeding Rs. 3.2 billion through fake bills, vouchers, and dummy bank accounts. The applicants contended false implication, lack of personal gain, absence of mala fide on their part, and excessive mandate by the Investigating Officer. The High Court dismissed all bail applications and recalled the interim orders, holding that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy requiring reasonable demonstration of mala fide, ulterior motives, or harassment by the prosecution. Emphasizing a tentative assessment of the evidence, the Court found substantial documentary material prima facie connecting all accused persons to systematic public fund embezzlement and corruption.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of demonstrable mala fide, ulterior motive, or harassment on the part of the prosecution disentitles an accused from obtaining pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether prima facie documentary evidence indicating systematic embezzlement of public funds by public officials and private individuals warrants dismissal of pre-arrest bail at the tentative assessment stage?
  • What threshold of proof is required from an accused to establish entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of pre-arrest bail in NAB proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Anjuman Ghulaman Mustafa vs Darul Islamia Society & others2024 SCP 67, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-26
  execution of decreelimitation periodcivil revisiondecree-holderjudgment-debtorleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from concurrent findings of three courts below dismissing the petitioner's objection regarding the limitation period for executing a civil decree. The core legal question presented was whether the execution proceedings initiated after the dismissal of a civil revision were barred by limitation under Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, when no stay order had been obtained during the appellate and revisional proceedings. The Supreme Court held that once a decree is challenged through appeal or revision up to the court of last instance, the period of limitation for execution runs from the date of the final decree passed by that court of last instance, irrespective of whether the lower court's decree was affirmed, reversed, or modified, provided no further challenge was brought before the Supreme Court. The key principle laid down is that the decree of the court of last instance becomes the executable decree, and limitation for its execution commences from that final adjudication when higher appellate remedies are exhausted without invoking the jurisdiction of the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • From which date does the period of limitation for filing an execution petition run when a trial court decree is challenged in appeal and revision?
  • Does the absence of a stay order during appellate or revisional proceedings affect the executability of the original decree before the final disposal of the case?
  • When does the principle laid down in Bakhtiar Ahmad regarding the clogging of limitation apply to execution petitions?
  Read full judgment →
• Anjum Mumtaz Malik vs Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore & others2024 LHC 5438, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 348 · Lahore High Court
  proforma promotionadverse remarksPERofficiating promotioncivil servantseniority-cum-fitnessdeferment of promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a Senior Civil Judge, challenged an order declining his request for proforma promotion as an Additional District & Sessions Judge, which had been deferred due to adverse remarks in his PER for a specific period. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, whose promotion was deferred due to adverse remarks that were subsequently neutralized by earning three consecutive satisfactory PERs, is entitled to proforma promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, notwithstanding that the earlier promotions of his batchmates were termed officiating. The court held that once the temporary embargo or adverse remarks are overcome, a civil servant has an inalienable right to be considered for promotion along with batch-mates, and officiating promotions made against regular vacancies cannot preclude proforma promotion. The court laid down the principle that the removal of obstacles such as adverse remarks entitles an officer to remedy monetary and rank loss through proforma promotion, and that the device of officiating promotion cannot be used contrary to statutory rules to deny legitimate rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant is entitled to proforma promotion from the date his juniors were promoted once the adverse remarks deferring his promotion are successfully overcome?
  • Can officiating promotions permanently preclude a civil servant from receiving proforma promotion when such promotions were made against regular vacancies rather than under circumstances specified in the rules?
  • What is the effect of earning subsequent consecutive satisfactory PERs on earlier adverse remarks concerning integrity for the purpose of promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Amna Naz vs The State & another2024 SCP 408, 2025 SCMR 432 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-07
  post-arrest bailwoman accusedprohibitory clausecustoms smugglingcustodial interrogation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which declined post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under the Customs Act, 1969 and the Import & Export (Control) Act, 1950. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a woman found in possession of foreign-made mobile phones at the airport without import documents, was entitled to post-arrest bail despite the offence falling within the prohibitory clause. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The holding establishes that the case of a female accused must be examined under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and bail cannot be denied solely based on the prohibitory clause or the sentence prescribed, especially when custodial interrogation is no longer required and there is no risk of abscondence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the case of a female accused must be examined under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be declined to an accused solely on the ground that the alleged offence falls within the prohibitory clause?
  • Is travel history alone a sufficient ground to deny post-arrest bail in custom-related offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjid Ali Ihc, Incharge Police Post Shahab Khel Badh Ber Peshawar. vs The State etc2024 PHC 104, 2024 PCRLJ 1803 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-22
  contempt of courtsubordinate courts jurisdictionindirect contemptillegal detentionhabeas corpuscriminal procedurepolice official
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Incharge Police Post, challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code passed by the Additional Sessions Judge for allegedly flouting a court order by restraining a court bailiff from inspecting the police post. The core legal question revolved around the jurisdiction of subordinate courts to try contempt of court offences and the correct procedure to be adopted. The Peshawar High Court held that offences under the Contempt of Court Ordinance are triable exclusively by superior courts, except for contempt punishable under the Pakistan Penal Code which may be dealt with by subordinate courts following the specific procedures laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court ruled that since the alleged act constituted an indirect contempt committed outside the court premises, it did not fall under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code, rendering the trial court's summary conviction illegal. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter back for a re-decision in accordance with the correct legal procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Do subordinate courts possess the jurisdiction to try offences of contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Ordinance?
  • What is the correct procedure for subordinate courts to follow when dealing with contempt of court or offences against public justice under the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Does an indirect contempt committed outside the physical presence of the court fall within the ambit of Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Can a trial court impose a sentence of imprisonment under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code beyond the prescribed fine?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Iqbal Afridi vs Provincial Election Commissioner & another2024 SHC 134 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-24Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali vs The State etc2024 LHC 1934, 2024 MLD 1563, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1044 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-15
  rapebenefit of doubtcriminal appealmedical evidencedelayed FIRacquittalcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence of rape under Section 376(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of a significant delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of independent corroboration, and medical evidence that contradicted the prosecution's timeline. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with flaws and inconsistencies, including the unexplained five-day delay in reporting the incident and the failure of medical evidence to support the allegation of recent rape, as the victim's hymen showed old, healed ruptures. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish the place of occurrence or produce credible witnesses. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reiterating the established legal principle that if a single circumstance creates uncertainty, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create a reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
  • Can a conviction for rape be sustained when medical evidence contradicts the timeline of the alleged offence?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if the prosecution fails to prove the place of occurrence?
  • Does the existence of a single doubt entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Sultan and others vs Adjudicating Authority-III EOBI, Islamabad and others2024 SCP 105, 2024 SCMR 826, 2024 PLC 164, 2024 PLJ SC 601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-18
  old-age pensionEmployees' Old-Age Benefits Act 1976EOBIpension eligibilitycontribution periodbeneficial legislationsocial security
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan involved conflicting decisions of various High Courts regarding the interpretation and application of Section 22(2) of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976. The core legal issue was whether the exception under Section 22(2), which reduces the required contribution period for old-age pension eligibility, applies to any insured person based solely on their age upon entering insurable employment, or whether it applies strictly to those who attained the requisite age on specific cut-off dates. The Supreme Court held that the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 is a beneficial statute that must be construed liberally to advance social security goals under Article 38 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. However, Section 22(2) provides a specific exception tied explicitly to two cut-off dates: 1st July 1976 or the date the Act becomes applicable to an establishment under Section 1(4). The Court ruled that to qualify for the exception, an employee must be employed and satisfy the prescribed age criteria on one of these cut-off dates.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the exception reducing pension contribution years under Section 22(2) of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act 1976 applies automatically based solely on an employee's age when entering employment?
  • What are the relevant cut-off dates for invoking the benefit of reduced contribution years under Section 22(2) of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act 1976?
  • Can an employee who enters insurable employment after the statutory cut-off dates avail the reduced pension contribution exception under Section 22(2) of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Shahzad, Muhammad Iqbal vs The State, etc, The State, etc2024 LHC 390, 2024 YLR 2418, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1159 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-25
  murderbenefit of doubtchance witnessmedical evidencemotivefirearm injurycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a murder trial where a minor was killed by a firearm injury. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance witnesses, the existence of an unproven motive, the evidentiary value of a belated FIR, and conflicts between ocular and medical accounts. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to untrustworthy ocular testimony, doubtful medical evidence lacking an exit wound or recovered pellets, unproven motive, and inconsistent site plans. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the appellant's acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a chance witness whose presence at the crime scene is unnatural and unverified can form the basis of a murder conviction?
  • Does a contradiction between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the nature of the firearm injury damage the prosecution's case?
  • Is the uncorroborated recovery of a weapon from an accessible place sufficient to connect the accused to the crime when no crime empty is recovered?
  • Whether a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent court is sufficient to entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Shahzad and 3 others vs Federation of Pakistan and 3 others2024 PLC (C.S) 33 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-22
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilityNADRAstatutory vs non-statutoryservice regulationspromotion policywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by employees of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) seeking directions for their promotion to higher posts, alleging that the recruitment process violated the established promotion policy. The core legal question was whether the NADRA promotion policy and service regulations, framed by the Authority under Section 45 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, possess statutory force, thereby rendering a constitutional petition maintainable for their enforcement. The Court held that while rules framed by the Federal Government under Section 44 of the Ordinance are statutory, the regulations and promotion policies framed solely by the Authority under Section 45, without Federal Government approval, are non-statutory in nature. Consequently, the Court determined that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for the enforcement of these non-statutory regulations. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, consistent with the principle established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that NADRA employees cannot seek constitutional remedies for grievances arising from non-statutory service regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Are the regulations and promotion policies framed by the National Database and Registration Authority under Section 45 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, considered statutory in nature?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained for the enforcement of non-statutory service regulations of the National Database and Registration Authority?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to adjudicate service disputes of employees governed by non-statutory regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Mujahid Khan vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 222 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-11-18
  civil servicepromotioncentral selection boardcompulsory retirementdeferment of promotionconstitutional jurisdictionintelligence bureau
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by the petitioner, a civil servant in the Intelligence Bureau, seeking a direction to promote him to the post of Joint Director General (BPS-21) from the date the Central Selection Board considered and deferred his case. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service vide a departmental notification, leading the respondents to argue that the petition had become infructuous and that a retired civil servant cannot be considered for promotion. The core legal question was whether this Court can refer a retired civil servant's case for promotion to the Central Selection Board and whether the decision of the Board to defer the petitioner's promotion was unlawful or irrational. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that while a court may in certain circumstances refer a retired civil servant's case for promotion if they were wrongfully prevented from consideration, the Central Selection Board had recorded valid, detailed reasons based on the petitioner's service record and performance for deferring his promotion, and the Court cannot substitute its own views for the collective wisdom of the Board in constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether this Court can refer a retired civil servant's case for promotion to the Central Selection Board?
  • Can the High Court substitute its own views about the fitness of a civil servant for promotion with those of the Central Selection Board in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the imposition of the major penalty of compulsory retirement render a promotion writ petition infructuous under all circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Muhammad Khan vs Shah Marood and others2024 PHC 356, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 56 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-18Read full judgment →
• Amir Mahmood vs The State and another2024 LHC 4209, 2025 PCRLJ 65 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-24
  pre-arrest bailmedicated cosmeticsDrugs Act 1976DRAP Act 2012partnership agreementDrug Inspector powersunregistered drugs
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 23 and 27 of the Drugs Act 1976 and section 27 of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act 2012, following the seizure of unregistered medicated cosmetics containing allopathic drugs from a manufacturing facility. The core legal questions involved the authority of the Drug Inspector to inspect and seize items at the premises and whether the Petitioner was a mere employee or a partner of the firm. The Lahore High Court held that the seized items fell under the definition of medicated cosmetics governed by the DRAP Act rather than general cosmetics, that the Drug Inspector acted within lawful powers, and that tentative assessment of the partnership deed and records revealed sufficient incriminating material connecting the Petitioner as a partner. The Court ruled that pre-arrest bail is unwarranted where there is no proof of ulterior motives for false implication and sufficient incriminating evidence exists, thereby dismissing the bail application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Drug Inspector has the authority under the Drugs Act 1976 and the DRAP Act 2012 to inspect premises and seize unregistered medicated cosmetics?
  • Does the mere description of parties in a deed as partners establish a legal partnership, or must the true nature of the agreement be determined from the facts?
  • What constitutes sufficient grounds for the grant of pre-arrest bail in offences relating to unregistered drugs and medicated cosmetics?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Khan s/o Nasir Ali Khan and others vs Province of Sindh and Six Others2024 SHC 1196, 2025 YLR 915 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-02Read full judgment →
• Amir Hamza and 8 others vs Provincial Government through Chief2024 PLC (C.S.) 1063 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-12-07
  legitimate expectationland donorsadministrative lawpromissory estoppelpublic employmentwrit jurisdictionnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition concerns the failure of the Provincial Government to honor commitments made to land donors and project affectees regarding employment in a Hydro Power Project. The petitioners, whose lands were acquired for the 1 MW Hydro Power Project in Siliharang, alleged that the government breached a written commitment to prioritize them for Grade I and II appointments in exchange for their land and cooperation. The core legal question was whether the government is bound by its representations and policy commitments to provide employment to land donors, invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The Court held that the government is bound to honor its policy statements and specific commitments made to citizens. Finding that the petitioners had relied on these representations to their detriment, the Court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioners to available posts, or alternatively, on a contingent basis until posts become available. The Court affirmed that administrative authorities cannot unfairly disregard policy commitments, as such actions violate principles of natural justice and the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government be held accountable for failing to honor specific employment commitments made to land donors in development projects?
  • Does the doctrine of legitimate expectation apply to government policy statements regarding the prioritization of local inhabitants for employment?
  • Is the government obligated to provide employment to land donors when such a commitment was a condition for land acquisition?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Butt vs Managing Director PTVC, Islamabad, etc2024 IHC 262 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-17Read full judgment →
• Amir Baloch vs Pakistan Information Commission Chief Information2024 PLD Sindh 484 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-22Read full judgment →
• Amina Bibi and another vs Province of Punjab and others2024 LHC 4815 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-01Read full judgment →
• Amer Ishaq & others vs Province of KPK, etc.2024 SCP 246, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 1134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-11
  environmental constitutionalismair pollutionstone power crushersNational Environmental Quality Standardsright to a clean and healthy environmentpublic healthfundamental rightsSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a Constitution Petition filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, addressing the severe environmental degradation and air pollution caused by stone power crushers in village Suraj Galli, District Haripur, and challenging the vires of certain provisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Power Crushers (Installation, Operation and Regulations) Rules, 2020 and Act, 2020. The core legal question centered on whether non-compliant stone crushing plants violating National Environmental Quality Standards (NEQS) and safe distance requirements should be closed to protect public health and fundamental rights to life and dignity. The Supreme Court held that the operating plants failed to rebut findings of environmental non-compliance and ordered their immediate closure by the Environmental Protection Agency, KPK. Additionally, the Court mandated federal and provincial governments to update the NEQS within three months and directed the provincial EPA to submit compliance reports regarding other crushing plants across the province. The judgment reinforces the doctrines of environmental constitutionalism, sustainable development, and public health protection as integral components of constitutional fundamental rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether stone crushing plants operating in violation of National Environmental Quality Standards and safe distance requirements can be ordered to be sealed in the public interest?
  • Does the constitutional right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan include within its ambit the right to a clean and healthy environment?
  • Are the Federal and Provincial Governments obligated under law to update the National Environmental Quality Standards to effectively combat modern environmental crises?
  • What is the scope of environmental constitutionalism and judicial enforcement of sustainable development principles in Pakistani jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameet Kumar Essarani vs Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority through Director2024 CLC 1824 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-19Read full judgment →
• Ameer Mai and others vs Additional District Judge and others2024 MLD 1433 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-20Read full judgment →
• Ameer Badshah vs The State and another2024 YLR 37 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-02Read full judgment →
• Ameer Ali @ Khan Chacha & 02 others vs The State2024 SHC 274 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-29
  triple murderidentification in lightnatural eyewitnessesdefective investigationmitigating circumstanceslife imprisonmentrelated witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the High Court of Sindh challenged the conviction and life imprisonment sentences handed down by the Additional Sessions Judge-III/MCTC-II, Sukkur against three appellants for committing a triple murder under Sections 302(b), 149, 452, and 337H(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary issues were whether the natural eyewitnesses (inmates of the house) could reliably identify the accused in the wee hours of the night in an urban residence, whether the investigating officer’s failure to seize an electric bulb vitiated the prosecution's case, and whether minor discrepancies undermined the testimonies. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences. The Court held that in a densely populated city, the presence of light is presumed natural, and the investigator's mere lapse in seizing bulbs does not discredit natural eyewitnesses who are closely related to the accused. Furthermore, while tracking bullet trajectories is practically difficult, this factor, alongside the investigation lapse, properly justified awarding life imprisonment rather than capital punishment as mitigating circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an investigating officer to seize or record an electric bulb in the memo of the crime scene inherently render witness identification doubtful in an urban residential setting?
  • Can the natural testimony of inmate eyewitnesses who are close relatives of the accused be rejected solely due to minor discrepancies arising from delayed recording of evidence?
  • Whether the practical impossibility of eyewitnesses precisely tracking the trajectory of each bullet fired serves as a mitigating ground for awarding life imprisonment instead of the death penalty under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs Muhammad Shareef Khan2024 SCP 15, 2024 SCMR 430 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-10-31
  pre-emptiontalb-e-ishhadtalb-e-muwathibatstatutory noticeKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act 1987civil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a notice of talb-e-ishhad—the second mandatory demand in pre-emption proceedings—is legally valid when issued on a printed, stereotyped pro forma rather than a customized document. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a printed template is insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987. The Court reasoned that talb-e-ishhad requires a specific application of mind and must convey the necessary particulars tailored to the facts of each case. By relying on generic forms, a pre-emptor fails to comply with the mandatory procedural formalities. The Court emphasized that pre-emption is a "feeble right," and strict adherence to the prescribed procedure is essential. Consequently, the Court affirmed that such notices must be drafted individually to reflect the specific circumstances of the claim, and the use of ready-made forms renders the notice invalid and the pre-emption claim ineffective.

  Questions settled

  • Is a notice of talb-e-ishhad issued on a printed, stereotyped pro forma legally valid under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987?
  • What is the legal significance of the term 'majlis' in the context of performing talb-e-muwathibat?
  • Does the right of pre-emption require strict compliance with procedural formalities regarding the tendering of notices?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah etc. vs The State etc.2024 PHC 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-31
  criminal appealmurderocular evidencechance witnessforensic science laboratoryadverse inferencebenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a criminal appeal filed by convicts challenging their convictions and life sentences under Sections 302(b), 324, 452, 337-A(ii), 337-D, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected revision petition for sentence enhancement. The core legal questions pertained to the credibility of ocular testimony, identification of assailants in night-time darkness without a disclosed light source, delayed and joint dispatch of crime empties and recovered weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the withholding of key eyewitnesses. The Peshawar High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the enhancement revision as infructuous. The Court held that the presence of alleged eyewitnesses was unnatural and unverified, while failure to produce primary witnesses attracted an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Furthermore, sending crime empties together with weapons to the FSL destroyed the report's evidentiary value, and a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does sending crime empties to the forensic laboratory together with the recovered weapon destroy their evidentiary value?
  • Can an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 be drawn when the prosecution withholds key material eyewitnesses?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Amani Rome vs The State & 02 others2024 PHC 250, 2025 PCRLJ 189 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-21
  rapeminor victimjudicial confessionchild protectionrationality testcustodial torturecorroborationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the rape of a minor child. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the victim's testimony, the voluntariness of the appellant's judicial confession, and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction under Section 376(3) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through the victim's consistent testimony, which passed a rationality test, corroborated by medical evidence confirming recent forceful intercourse, and a voluntary judicial confession. The Court rejected the defense's claims of tutoring or duress regarding the victim's testimony and found no merit in the appellant's belated allegations of custodial torture. The principle laid down is that while a minor's testimony must be scrutinized for potential influence, it remains credible if it is natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical and other evidence; furthermore, a judicial confession, once proven voluntary and corroborated, is sufficient to sustain a conviction even if the accused later resiles from it.

  Questions settled

  • Is a judicial confession admissible and sufficient for conviction if the accused later resiles from it during a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the admission by a minor victim that family members instructed her to testify render her evidence inadmissible as 'tutored'?
  • Can a conviction for rape be sustained primarily on the testimony of a minor victim if corroborated by medical evidence, even if the victim did not immediately disclose the specific act of rape to her parents?
  • What is the legal effect of a belated allegation of custodial torture made by an accused during a trial when no such complaint was raised at the time of the judicial confession?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ullah Khan vs Waseem Iqbal and others2024 IHC 104, 2024 MLD 1422 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-21Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah vs United Bank Limited through President and others2023 SCP 334, 2024 SCMR 71, 2024 PLC 37 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-10-02
  workmanBranch ManagerIndustrial Relations ActNational Industrial Relations Commissiongrievance petitionsupervisory dutiespower of attorneyburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Officer Grade-II serving as Branch Manager at United Bank Limited, was dismissed from service following an inquiry into transaction irregularities. He filed a grievance petition under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act 2012 before the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The NIRC dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction after determining that the petitioner was not a 'workman'. This finding was upheld by the Full Bench of the NIRC and subsequently affirmed by the Peshawar High Court in writ jurisdiction. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner fell within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(xxxiii) of the Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that determination of workman status depends on the pith and substance of actual duties performed rather than designation alone. As the petitioner exercised extensive supervisory and managerial powers under a power of attorney and supervised subordinates, he was not a workman, rendering his grievance petition before the NIRC non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • What is the litmus test for determining whether an employee is a 'workman' or employed in a managerial/supervisory capacity under labour laws?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when an employee claims the status of a 'workman' contrary to their assigned managerial or supervisory role?
  • Is the absence of the power to hire and fire staff conclusive in establishing that an employee is a workman rather than a manager?
  Read full judgment →
• Aman Pazir Qureshi and another vs Chairman Joint Admission Committee2024 PLJ AJ&K 55 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Amal Sukhera vs Govt. of Punjab etc2024 LHC 4946 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-07Read full judgment →
• Altaf Ali Thr. Attorney Pehlwan Khaskheli vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 362 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-25Read full judgment →
• Allama Raja Nasir Abbas and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and others2024 IHC 88, 2024 PLD Islamabad 332, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 291 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-23
  writ petitioncontempt of courtprison rulesvisitation rightsjail superintendentdisobedience of court ordersecurity threatjudicial reviewhuman rightsrule of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a writ petition seeking visitation rights for political allies and friends with a high-profile prisoner, and a subsequent contempt petition against the Jail Superintendent for non-compliance with the Islamabad High Court's visitation order. The core legal question was whether the Superintendent's failure to arrange the meeting, citing security threats and prior discretionary orders, constituted willful contempt of court. The Court held that once a visitation order is passed, the Jail Superintendent is duty-bound to obey it and cannot justify disobedience by challenging its validity or citing rules empowering his discretion. Disregarding a court order on the basis of perceived per incuriam status or vague security concerns, without seeking review, amounts to contempt. While finding prima facie willful contempt, the Court refrained from further proceedings due to the Superintendent's subsequent compliance with a later order, emphasizing that future omissions would be dealt with strictly. The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring obedience to its directives.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Jail Superintendent disregard a High Court's visitation order by citing security concerns or prior discretionary orders without seeking review?
  • Does a Jail Superintendent's failure to respond to visitation applications constitute a breach of duty under the Pakistan Prison Rules?
  • What constitutes willful contempt of court in the context of non-compliance with judicial directives?
  • Can an alleged contemnor justify non-compliance by claiming the court's order was passed per incuriam?
  • How does subsequent compliance with a court order affect contempt proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Allahdito Chandio vs State2024 SHC 234 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-14
  criminal appealmurder trialbenefit of the doubtrule of consistencyocular and medical contradictiondelayed FIRappellate acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal arises from a judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dadu, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, whether material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence vitiated the conviction, and whether the rule of consistency applied given the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant by extending him the benefit of the doubt. The court held that unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, material contradictions between the ocular testimony and medical evidence, non-production of corroborative ballistic and chemical examiner reports in a timely manner, and the acquittal of co-accused on identical evidence warranted the application of the rule of consistency and the benefit of the doubt in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction of an accused can be sustained when there is a material and irreconcilable contradiction between the ocular account and the medical evidence?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused persons on the same set of evidence entitle another co-accused to an acquittal under the rule of consistency?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report in a criminal case?
  • Can an adverse presumption be drawn under Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when the prosecution fails to examine material eye-witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha, etc, Muhammad Afzal vs The State, etc, Muhammad Javed, etc2024 LHC 4419, 2025 PCRLJ 762, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 286 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-23
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtante-timed FIRinjured witnessmedical evidenceacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the timing of the FIR, and the consistency of medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt, citing significant discrepancies: the FIR appeared ante-timed, the injured witness’s testimony contained material contradictions and improvements, and the medical evidence regarding firing distance contradicted the prosecution's narrative. Furthermore, the prosecution suppressed injuries sustained by one of the appellants, casting doubt on the entire incident's version. The court emphasized that the motive was not proven and that the prosecution's failure to provide a consistent account created reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's judgment, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement. The principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is riddled with contradictions, suppression of facts, and unnatural conduct, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by an accused person during an occurrence cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the FIR is found to be ante-timed and the prosecution witnesses provide contradictory accounts of its preparation?
  • Is the testimony of an injured witness sufficient for conviction if it contains material contradictions and improvements regarding the incident's timeline?
  • Does the failure to prove the alleged motive for a crime entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Muhammad alias Haji Malik Noorzai and others vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior through Secretary and 2 others2024 PLD Balochistan 115 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-23Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta, etc., Shah Jahan vs The State, etc.2024 LHC 1379, 2024 YLR 1924, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 929 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-18
  criminal appealmurderpostmortem reportadmissibility of evidencebenefit of doubtdelayed FIRabscondenceocular account
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a private complaint. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a delayed FIR, the admissibility of medical reports without the authoring doctor's testimony, and the weight of abscondence as proof of guilt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the six-day delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the lack of reliable identification sources and the doubtful presence of eyewitnesses, undermined the prosecution's narrative. Crucially, the court ruled that postmortem reports are expert opinions that cannot be read into evidence unless the doctor is examined or their absence is legally justified and secondary evidence is properly established under Article 78 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and Section 509 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, affirming that abscondence alone is not conclusive proof of guilt and that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a postmortem report be read into evidence without the examination of the doctor who prepared it?
  • Does the abscondence of an accused constitute conclusive proof of guilt?
  • What is the legal requirement for proving the contents of a document under Article 78 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is a delayed FIR without a plausible explanation sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Noor Ahmad2024 LHC 6368, 2025 PLD Lahore 508 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-09Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta through L.Rs. and another vs Mst. Qudrat Bibi through L.Rs. and 22024 YLR 615 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-31Read full judgment →
• Allah Dino Shaikh vs The State2024 SHC 466 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-13
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquirycommon objectcriminal liabilitytentative assessmentbail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Allah Dino Shaikh, in connection with FIR No. 45 of 2024, involving offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 120-B, 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), and 506-2 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the fact that co-accused had already been granted bail. The court observed that the allegations against the applicant were of a generalized nature regarding simple injuries, whereas the firearm injury was attributed to a co-accused. Furthermore, noting that co-accused had been granted bail—partly based on the complainant's concession—the court held that the applicant's culpability required further inquiry, which is a matter for trial. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, emphasizing that the findings were tentative and should not prejudice the trial. The principle laid down is that where allegations are generalized and co-accused have been granted bail, the case for further inquiry is established, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of bail to co-accused on the basis of a complainant's concession entitle another accused to bail under the rule of consistency?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the allegations against them are of a generalized nature and do not specify a direct role in the primary offense?
  • Can a court grant post-arrest bail when the determination of the accused's culpability requires further inquiry during the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bux and others vs Ali Muhammad and others2024 SHC 418 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Ghulam Mustafa & another2021 LHC 4859, 2024 YLR 871 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-14Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh deceased through L.Rs & others vs Muhammad Riaz & Others2024 SCP 333, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 63 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-11
  General Power of AttorneySpecific PerformanceConcurrent FindingsFiduciary DutySale Deed ValidityCivil Revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed their revision application regarding a suit for declaration, specific performance, and injunction over agricultural land. The core dispute arose from an oral agreement to sell land to five brothers, followed by one brother (Petitioner No. 1) using a General Power of Attorney to transfer the land to his own sons and his brother's sons. The trial court, appellate court, and High Court concurrently ruled against the petitioners, finding the transfer fraudulent. The Supreme Court addressed whether an attorney may alienate a principal's property to close relatives without special permission and the validity of a multi-page sale deed lacking signatures on all pages. The Court held that an attorney requires explicit prior approval from the principal to transfer property to close relatives, and failing this, such transactions are invalid. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that multi-page documents must be signed on each page to be legally binding. Finding no perversity in the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a general power of attorney holder require special permission from the principal to transfer property to close relatives?
  • Is a multi-page sale deed legally valid if the parties have not signed or thumb-marked every page?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh (deceased) through his legal heirs etc. vs Muhammad Hanif2024 LHC 1294, 2025 CLC 572 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-27Read full judgment →
• Allah Bachayo Mahar and others vs P.O Sindh & others2024 SHC 844 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-01Read full judgment →
• All Public Universities BPS Teachers Association (Apubta) through its2024 SCP 292, 2024 SCMR 1887 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-29
  public sector universitiesVice-Chancellor appointmentstenured positionsacting charge appointmentsHigher Education Commissionstatutory body meetingsuniversity governance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises out of proceedings concerning widespread non-compliance with statutory provisions by public sector universities across federal and provincial jurisdictions. The primary legal issue centers on whether public sector universities can lawfully operate with long-vacant executive positions and fail to convene mandatory periodic statutory body meetings. The Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions requiring Vice-Chancellors, Rectors, provincial secretaries, and Higher Education Commission officials to submit written explanations and appear in court regarding persistent statutory breaches. These include leaving key positions—such as Vice-Chancellors, Registrars, Controllers of Examinations, and Treasurers—vacant or under acting charge, and failing to hold prescribed statutory meetings of Senates, Syndicates, and Boards. The Court held that public sector universities funded by the public exchequer must adhere strictly to their governing statutes rather than operate on personal whims. Disregarding statutory requirements concerning tenured appointments and administrative governance adversely impacts academic standards, harms university reputations, and undermines the validity and recognition of awarded degrees.

  Questions settled

  • Are public sector universities required to strictly fill tenured administrative and executive positions in accordance with their respective governing statutes?
  • Does the failure of a public university to hold mandatory statutory meetings of its Senate, Syndicate, or Board constitute a violation of its governing law?
  • Can executive heads of public sector universities make temporary or ad-hoc administrative appointments to key tenured positions in contravention of statutory requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• All Public Universities BPS Teachers Association (Apubta) through its2024 SCP 126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-01
  public importanceconstitutional petitionuniversity governancefundamental rightsvice chancellor appointmentstatutory complianceeducational policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the All Public Universities BPS Teachers Association, representing public sector university faculty, to address systemic governance failures in public universities across Pakistan. The petitioner alleged that numerous universities operate without appointed Vice Chancellors, leave tenured positions vacant, and fail to convene statutory decision-making bodies like syndicates and senates as required by law. The petitioner argued that these failures violate the right to be treated in accordance with the law under Article 4, the right to equality under Article 25, and undermine the Principles of Policy regarding education under Article 37 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, overruling office objections, held that the petition raises matters of public importance concerning the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and constitutional obligations. Consequently, the Court entertained the petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, directing the registration of the petition and issuing notices to respondents to submit detailed comments regarding vacancies in leadership positions and compliance with statutory meeting requirements. The Court emphasized that governance failures in public institutions directly impact the constitutional rights of citizens and the functional autonomy of universities.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of public sector universities to fill statutory positions and hold mandatory meetings constitute a matter of public importance under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
  • Can the Supreme Court entertain a petition regarding the administrative governance of public sector universities under its original jurisdiction?
  • Does the failure to appoint Vice Chancellors in public universities violate the fundamental rights of citizens?
  Read full judgment →
• All Pakistan Muslim League thr. its Chairman Jahan Zarin vs Election2024 SCP 17, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-12
  political party delistingElection Commission of PakistanElections Act 2017party enlistmentconsolidated statements of accountspolitical party statusstatutory compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged an order of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) which delisted the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML) as a political party. The appellant, Jahan Zarin, initially filed the appeal in the name of the APML, which the court noted no longer existed as a political party due to the absence of elected office bearers. The core legal question was whether the ECP acted lawfully in delisting the party for failing to comply with statutory requirements, specifically the submission of consolidated statements of accounts for four years as mandated by law. The Supreme Court upheld the ECP's decision, noting that the appellant failed to demonstrate any illegality or unconstitutionality in the impugned order. The court confirmed that the party had failed to fulfill the mandatory prerequisites for enlistment under the Elections Act, 2017, and the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the principle that political parties must strictly adhere to statutory financial reporting and organizational requirements to maintain their legal status and enlistment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a political party be delisted by the Election Commission of Pakistan for failing to provide consolidated statements of accounts?
  • Does the failure to maintain elected office bearers in accordance with a party constitution justify the delisting of a political party?
  • Is the Election Commission of Pakistan empowered to delist a political party for non-compliance with the requirements of the Elections Act, 2017?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Zain vs The State, etc2024 LHC 1743, 2025 PCRLJ 201, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 129 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-16
  criminal revisioncross-examinationsite planrelevancy of evidenceprosecution witnesstrial court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, read with Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. The petitioner sought to set aside an order that disallowed defense counsel from cross-examining a prosecution witness (PW-1), a draftsman, regarding the site plan of the place of recovery of the weapon of offence. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in restricting the cross-examination of a witness who did not prepare the site plan and was not an attesting witness to it. The High Court held that the trial court's decision was sound and reasonable. The court reasoned that since the witness was neither the author of the site plan nor an attesting witness, he could not be cross-examined on the contents or accuracy of a document he did not prepare. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that cross-examination must be relevant and directed at a witness competent to testify on the specific subject matter.

  Questions settled

  • Can a witness be cross-examined on a document, such as a site plan, if they are neither the author nor an attesting witness of that document?
  • Does a trial court have the discretion to disallow questions during cross-examination that are deemed irrelevant to the witness's testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Waqar Azeem vs Standard Chartered Bank Pakistan Limited2024 IHC 74, 2024 CLD 397, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 100 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza vs Regional Police Officer & another2024 SCP 107, 2024 SCMR 840, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 770, 2024 PLJ SC 891 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-14
  departmental appeallimitation periodpolice disciplinary proceedingsservice appealper incuriammisconductdismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arises from the dismissal of a service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner, a police constable dismissed from service for misconduct under the Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, filed a departmental appeal after a delay of over nine months. The departmental authority and the Tribunal rejected the appeal as time-barred. The core legal question addressed is whether a departmental appeal can be dismissed on the ground of time-lapse when the specific efficiency and discipline rules do not prescribe a limitation period. The Supreme Court held that where service rules do not provide a limitation period for a departmental appeal, the sixty-day time frame specified under Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, applies. The Court laid down the principle that the statutory limitation period under general civil servant legislation governs departmental appeals in the absence of specific timelines in departmental rules, and prior judgments ignoring such statutory provisions are per incuriam. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a departmental appeal can be dismissed on the ground of limitation when the Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975 do not provide a specific period for filing an appeal?
  • Does the limitation period specified under Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 apply when service rules are silent on the timeframe for a departmental appeal?
  • Can a plea regarding the date of communication of a punishment order be raised for the first time before the service tribunal or the Supreme Court without being urged before the departmental appellate authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza vs Province of Sindh and others2024 SHC 1010 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-24Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza S/O Muhammad Chand vs The State Through P.G Sindh2024 SHC 756 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-15
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabductionprohibitory limbconflicting versionsDNA reportmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of FIR No. 07 of 2024 registered under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Mahmoodabad, Karachi. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the conflicting versions in the victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the delay in reporting, and the lack of corroborating medical and DNA evidence. The Sindh High Court held that where the prosecution presents conflicting versions and material evidence such as DNA and medical reports do not implicate the accused, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C., making bail a right rather than a concession. The court laid down the principle that in offenses not falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C., grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, and the prosecution must show exceptional circumstances such as risk of abscondence, tampering with evidence, or repetition of the offense to justify withholding bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conflicting versions between the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the initial police report render a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  • Does the absence of supporting DNA and medical evidence entitle an accused to post-arrest bail in a kidnapping and assault case?
  • What are the circumstances required for the prosecution to successfully oppose bail in offenses not falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.?
  • Is the grant of bail in offenses outside the prohibitory clause considered a rule with refusal as the exception?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza Mugheri vs Ghulam Rasool and 2 Others2024 SHC 210 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza Laghari vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 586 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-21Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs The State2024 PCRLJ 873 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-09
  murdercriminal appealmedical evidenceballistic reportcontradiction in ocular accountbenefit of doubtacquittalfirearm injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Sections 302, 504, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 25 of the Sindh Arms Act 2013, resulting in sentences of life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in the face of glaring discrepancies between the ocular account, medical evidence, and forensic reports regarding the firearm injuries. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case due to foundational contradictions between the witness testimonies and the medical/scientific evidence, specifically concerning the nature of shotgun wounds at a stated distance and negative ballistic matching. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, laying down the principle that while witnesses may falter, objective scientific and medical evidence, alongside the physical realities presented by the dead body, must prevail to resolve doubts in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conflict between ocular account and medical evidence regarding the nature of firearm injuries is sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a murder case?
  • What is the evidentiary value of medical and forensic reports when they contradict the distance and weapon descriptions provided by eyewitnesses?
  • Does a negative ballistic report regarding the recovered weapon render the recovery inconsequential to the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused be convicted of murder when the physical evidence on the dead body contradicts the prosecution's theory of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Mushtaq and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 CLC 18 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-19
  rejection of plaintstay of suitpower of attorneysuccessor in interestearlier instituted suitsame partiescivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking the rejection of a plaint in a suit for declaration, possession, and permanent injunction filed by the successors of an attorney against the Federation of Pakistan and others. The core legal question revolved around whether a subsequent suit filed by the attorney or successor-in-interest for similar reliefs and title regarding a disputed property is maintainable while a prior, previously instituted suit by the principal is already pending adjudication. The court held that the subsequent suit is barred by the principles governing parallel proceedings and is directly hit by Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as the matters in issue are directly and substantially the same as those in the earlier pending suit. The key principle laid down is that where the reliefs sought in a subsequent suit are directly and substantially linked with an earlier instituted suit between parties claiming under the same title, the trial of the subsequent suit must be stayed to avoid parallel trials and conflicting judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Can a subsequent suit be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the matters in issue are directly and substantially the same as in a previously instituted suit?
  • Does an attorney or successor holding an irrevocable power of attorney maintain an independent suit for title when the principal's suit regarding the same property is already pending?
  • Whether the addition of formal or informal parties or minor variations in reliefs sought prevent the application of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a plaintiff claim a distinct title as a bona fide transferee based solely on a power of attorney without the principal's underlying title being first recognized by a court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Murtaza vs Aasma Batool2024 SC AJK 16 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-03-04Read full judgment →
• Ali Murad Pirkani and others vs Abdul Malik and others2024 CLC 135 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad Khan Jatoi and another vs Province of Sindh and others2024 SHC 270 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-27Read full judgment →
• Ali Mir Shah vs The State2024 YLR 1376 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-25
  murdercriminal appealbenefit of the doubtmedical jurisprudencerigor mortispost-mortem reportocular testimonyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, given the medical and ocular discrepancies. The Sindh High Court held that serious discrepancies regarding the time of death, presence of rigor mortis contradicting the prosecution's timeline, failure of mashirs to support recovery, and flaws in the investigation rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The court laid down the principle that medical evidence—specifically regarding rigor mortis and the condition of the dead body—supersedes interested ocular testimony when it fundamentally contradicts the prosecution's narrative, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt and resulting in an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of rigor mortis contradicting the prosecution's timeline of death warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Whether material discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence are fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when mashirs turn hostile and recovery is doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Khan vs Government of Pakistan through A.G. Islamabad and another2024 SCP 71, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 486, 2024 PLJ SC 355 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-21
  abuse of processwithdrawal of petitionexemplary costsoriginal jurisdictioncontemptuous conductconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed directly under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan relating to elections, but its contents were widely publicized in the electronic and print media prior to its fixing. Shortly after filing, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition and abruptly left the country on a one-way ticket, failing to appear despite multiple notices. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether such conduct amounted to an abuse of the process of the court aimed at exploiting judicial proceedings for media publicity and undermining constitutional bodies. The Court held that filing a petition for ulterior publicity and abandoning it while fleeing the jurisdiction constitutes a clear abuse of the process of the court. The Court permitted the withdrawal of the petition but dismissed it with exemplary costs of five hundred thousand rupees, payable equally to the Pakistan Bar Council and the Supreme Court Bar Association, and directed that the petitioner should not be permitted to unlawfully use a military rank of which he had been stripped following a court martial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether seeking withdrawal of a constitutional petition after achieving media publicity constitutes an abuse of the process of the court?
  • Can the Supreme Court impose costs on a petitioner who abandons a petition and leaves the country?
  • Whether an individual stripped of a military rank through a court martial can continue to use that rank in judicial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Khan & others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 582 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-21Read full judgment →
• Ali Jan Panhwar and others vs Po Sindh and others2024 SHC 468 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain alias Raju vs The State2024 YLR 996 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-18
  narcotics possessionsafe custody of case propertybenefit of doubtcriminal appealpolice enmityindependent corroborationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court against the appellant for the possession of narcotics. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the safe custody and transmission of the recovered contraband. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody of the narcotics at the police station, as the Head Moharir was not examined and the relevant register entries were not produced. Furthermore, the Court noted significant contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the nature of the recovered substance and the absence of independent corroboration despite the appellant's claim of police enmity. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must strictly establish the safe custody and transmission of narcotics through safe hands; failure to do so renders the recovery evidence unreliable and entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine the Head Moharir and produce Register No. 19 regarding the custody of narcotics at a police station vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the evidence of police officials sufficient to sustain a conviction when the accused claims enmity with the police and no independent corroboration is provided?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to establish the safe custody and transmission of narcotics to the chemical examiner?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan vs The State2024 YLR 165 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-02
  criminal appealbenefit of doubteyewitness testimonydishonest improvementmedical evidencerecovery of weaponterrorismacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder and terrorism-related offenses, while a criminal revision application seeks the enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the validity of weapon recovery, and the consistency of the prosecution's narrative. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt. It found the eyewitness accounts unreliable due to the nighttime setting, the lack of credible identification, and dishonest improvements made to align testimony with medical evidence. Furthermore, the court noted significant delays in the investigation, suspicious recovery of the weapon, and the suppression of the true motive, which was rooted in a pre-existing land dispute rather than the alleged sectarian rivalry. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the benefit of the doubt must be extended when evidence is deficient. The key principle laid down is that dishonest improvements by witnesses to align with medical evidence destroy their credibility, and medical evidence itself cannot serve as substantive corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when eyewitnesses make dishonest improvements to their testimony to align with medical evidence?
  • Does medical evidence serve as substantive corroboration to prove the identity of an accused in a criminal trial?
  • Is the identification of assailants by headlights during a nighttime incident considered reliable evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of a significant, unexplained delay in the recovery of a crime weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan Magsi alias Akbar and another vs The State2024 PCRLJ 918 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-10
  robberymurderanti-terrorismsole eye-witnessidentification paradestreet crimecriminal appealconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their convictions for robbery, murder, and terrorism-related offenses arising from a shooting incident following a robbery. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of sole eye-witness testimony, the impact of a delay in lodging the FIR, and whether the incident fell within the purview of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The High Court upheld the convictions for robbery and murder, finding the eye-witness testimony credible and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, including the recovery of the murder weapon and stolen items. However, the Court set aside the convictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. It held that while the incident was brutal, it lacked the specific design, intent, or purpose to create terror as required by the Act, as established in Ghulam Hussain v. State. The Court affirmed that street crimes, even those involving murder, do not automatically constitute terrorism unless the specific statutory criteria for creating terror are met. The appellants' sentences for the remaining offenses were maintained, with the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applied.

  Questions settled

  • Does a robbery resulting in murder automatically constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of a sole eye-witness if corroborated by other evidence?
  • Is a delay in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case if the delay is adequately explained?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan Bozdar and others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 332 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-24Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan and others vs Federation of Pakistan, Province of Sindh2023 SHC 656, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 396 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-31
  public appointmentjudicial reviewinterview committeevested rightservice matterrecruitment policyconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions filed by candidates challenging their non-selection for the post of Prison Constable (BPS-05) within the Sindh Prison & Corrections Service Department. Despite securing high marks in physical and written tests, the petitioners were not selected after the interview stage, prompting allegations of nepotism and favoritism. The core legal questions were whether high marks in written examinations create a vested right to employment, whether the High Court can substitute its judgment for that of an Interview Committee, and whether the Sindh Police Recruitment Policy, 2022, applies to the Prison Department. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that merely securing high marks does not create a vested right to appointment, as the interview process is a subjective assessment of personality and suitability. The Court affirmed that it cannot interfere with the expert evaluation of a Selection Committee absent clear evidence of malafide, which was lacking. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Sindh Police Recruitment Policy, 2022, is inapplicable to the Prison Department, as it is limited to the Sindh Police.

  Questions settled

  • Does securing high marks in a written test create a vested right to appointment for a public post?
  • Can the High Court substitute its opinion for that of an Interview Committee regarding a candidate's suitability?
  • Does the Sindh Police Recruitment Policy, 2022 apply to the Sindh Prison & Corrections Service Department?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Haider S/O Javaid Ahmed vs The State2024 SHC 732 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-08
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycomplainant's affidavitnon-compoundable offenserobberydacoitycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of F.I.R. No. 121/2024 registered under Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sohrab Goth, Karachi. The core legal question revolves around whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the complainant himself appears in court, disowns the involvement of the accused, and submits an affidavit of no objection, despite the offense being non-compoundable and the police opposing the bail. The Sindh High Court held that the complainant's categorical stance and affidavit create a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the complainant does not wish to prosecute the accused. The court laid down the principle that while the nature of the charge and non-compoundability are relevant, the complainant's voluntary withdrawal of support at the bail stage is a paramount consideration that cannot be brushed aside, making the case fit for further inquiry under Section 497(2). Consequently, the post-arrest bail was granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted in a non-compoundable offense when the complainant submits an affidavit of no objection?
  • Does the disowning of the accused by the complainant during the bail stage make the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the statement of the complainant be considered at the bail stage despite the investigating officer's opposition based on a Section 161 statement?
  Read full judgment →