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.

• Ali Gul vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1256 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad & others2024 SCP 284, 2024 SCMR 1945 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-21
  recounting of votesconsolidation of resultselection disputeReturning OfficerElection Commission of Pakistanconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from an election dispute concerning the recounting of votes in the NA-97 Faisalabad-III constituency. The petitioner, who was the runner-up candidate, claimed to have submitted a timely application for a recount to the Returning Officer (RO) under Section 95(5) of the Elections Act 2017. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) accepted his representation and ordered a recount, which reversed the result in his favor. However, the Lahore High Court set aside the ECP's order in its constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the petitioner had fulfilled the statutory prerequisite of submitting a written recount request before the commencement of the consolidation proceedings. Finding that the petitioner's alleged application was undated, unsigned, and unsupported by the RO's records, the Court held that the prerequisite was not met. Consequently, the ECP had no authority to order a recount after consolidation. The Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal, and affirmed the High Court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether submitting a written request for a recount before the commencement of consolidation proceedings is a mandatory prerequisite for a recount under Section 95(5) of the Elections Act 2017?
  • Can the Election Commission of Pakistan direct a Returning Officer to recount ballot papers after the consolidation of results has been completed if no prior valid application was made?
  • How does the failure to provide a dated and signed application for a recount affect a candidate's claim for a recount under the Elections Act 2017?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar & another vs The State2024 SHC 1114 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-25
  post-arrest bailmurderprohibitory clausetentative assessmentheinous crimemedical evidenceocular account
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving murder and serious assaults registered under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, 114, 337-A(i), F(i), and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had earlier dismissed their bail plea. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the heinous nature of the offenses, tentative assessment of available evidence, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants were directly nominated in the FIR with specific roles supported by medical evidence and eyewitness accounts, and the gravity of the charges precluded the grant of bail. The court dismissed the bail application, laying down that deeper appreciation of evidence is not warranted at the bail stage and that tentative assessment of material connecting the accused to heinous crimes falls within the prohibitory clause disentitles them to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused are nominated in the FIR with specific roles for heinous offenses falling within the prohibitory clause?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible while deciding a bail application under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does delay in lodging the FIR warrant the grant of bail when such delay is adequately explained by the immediate need for medical attention for the injured?
  • Whether tentative assessment of material available on record is sufficient to connect the accused to the crime at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Bukhsh and another vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1305 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-09-22
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionaerial firingfurther inquirybenefit of doubttentative assessmentmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous application by the applicants seeking post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question before the Balochistan High Court was whether the applicants, who were nominated in the FIR with a general role of firing and aerial firing without being attributed the fatal injury to the deceased, were entitled to the concession of bail under the rule of further inquiry. The Court held that since no specific role of causing injury to the deceased was assigned to the applicants and the question of common intention required further determination after recording evidence, their case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, laying down the principle that mere nomination in an FIR with a general or aerial firing role, absent direct attribution of fatal injuries, warrants post-arrest bail, and that the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused even at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused nominated in an FIR with a general role of firing without causing fatal injuries is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
  • Does mere presence and general attribution of firing attract the provisions of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether absconsion alone is sufficient to deny bail when an accused otherwise makes out a case on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Bahadur vs Khan Bahadur etc2024 PHC 308 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-19Read full judgment →
• Ali Anwar Paracha vs The State & another2024 SCP 234, 2024 SCMR 1596, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 264 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-04
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausefurther inquirycriminal liabilitybail as rule
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Islamabad High Court denying post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and the evidentiary gaps regarding the underlying business transaction. The Supreme Court observed that the complainant failed to substantiate the alleged cash transaction, and the foundational elements of the offence required further inquiry. Holding that the offence under Section 489-F does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court reiterated the principle that in non-bailable offences punishable by less than ten years, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception. Furthermore, the Court held that the mere registration of other criminal cases does not automatically disentitle an accused to bail if a prima facie case for further inquiry exists. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the mere registration of other criminal cases against an accused sufficient ground to deny bail if a prima facie case for further inquiry exists?
  • What are the foundational elements required to constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali and others vs The State2024 IHC 116, 2024 MLD 1247 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-16
  joint possessionControl of Narcotic Substances Actconscious possessionseparate recoveriessentencing guidelinesfemale convict mitigationconfession rejection
  Summary & questions settled

  The Islamabad High Court heard an appeal against a Special Court judgment convicting three appellants under Sections 9(c) and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 (CNSA) and sentencing each to life imprisonment on the basis of joint possession of the total quantity of drugs recovered from a vehicle. The prosecution case established that distinct recoveries of charas, opium, and heroin were made individually from each appellant based on their separate disclosures. The High Court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences, holding that joint and collective liability requires evidence of joint possession and control, not mere knowledge or presence in the same vehicle. Applying the sentencing guidelines set out in Ghulam Murtaza v. The State for offences committed prior to the 2022 CNSA amendments, the Court maintained the driver's sentence due to the quantity of heroin recovered from the boot, reduced the sentence of the male passenger based solely on the charas recovered from him, and reduced the sentence of the female passenger for the opium recovered from her, extending a one-third reduction in sentence pursuant to the precedent governing female convicts.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere presence in a vehicle where narcotics are recovered automatically attract the principle of joint and collective possession under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can accused persons be sentenced for the aggregate quantity of narcotics recovered from a vehicle when separate and distinct recoveries were made from each individual?
  • What degree of evidence is required to establish joint possession when narcotics are concealed in different parts of a vehicle or within personal items of passengers?
  • How does the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 operate against passengers compared to the driver of a vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Amin Khan Gandapur vs Tariq Mehmood, Returning Officer, Na-44, D.I.Khan-I & others2024 PHC 44 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ali Amin Khan Gandapur vs Muhammad Nadir, Returning Officer, PK-113, D.I.Khan-III & others2024 PHC 46 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ali Amin Khan Gandapur vs Muhammad Fasih Ishaq Abbasi, Returning2024 PHC 48 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ali Akber vs P.O Sindh and others2024 SHC 1132 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-24Read full judgment →
• Ali Adnan Arif Tabba and others vs National Database Registration2024 PLC (C.S.) 890 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-19
  Master and Servantdisciplinary proceedingsNADRA employeesnon-statutory rulesmaintainability of suitshow-cause noticeservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns 21 consolidated suits filed by employees of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) challenging their suspension orders, charge sheets, and subsequent disciplinary proceedings initiated against them for alleged misconduct regarding the processing of identity documents for suspected aliens. The core legal question was whether the employees, governed by non-statutory regulations, could maintain civil suits against pending departmental disciplinary proceedings and show-cause notices. The Court held that the suits were not maintainable. It reasoned that the relationship between NADRA and its employees is governed by the principle of 'Master and Servant' under non-statutory regulations, and that the disciplinary proceedings had not yet attained finality, leaving the plaintiffs with adequate remedies through departmental appeals. The Court emphasized that courts should not interfere with pending departmental disciplinary actions where no fundamental right has been violated, and that jurisdictional objections regarding such proceedings must first be agitated before the concerned departmental authorities rather than through civil litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can employees governed by non-statutory service regulations maintain a civil suit against pending departmental disciplinary proceedings?
  • Does the issuance of a show-cause notice and subsequent charge sheet constitute a violation of fundamental rights warranting judicial intervention?
  • Is the relationship between NADRA and its employees governed by statutory or non-statutory rules?
  • Must jurisdictional errors in departmental proceedings be agitated before the concerned authority before approaching a court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Abbas and others vs The State2024 YLR 2064 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2023-07-06
  post-arrest bailtwo versionsself-defensevicarious liabilitysuppression of injuriescriminal proceduretentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by four petitioners accused of murder and causing injuries under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the prosecution's failure to explain injuries sustained by the accused and the resulting scenario of two conflicting versions. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle that when the prosecution suppresses injuries sustained by the accused, it creates a case of two versions, which prima facie supports a plea of self-defense. In such circumstances, the principle of vicarious liability is not automatically attracted, and each accused is held responsible for their individual acts. Furthermore, the Court observed that the medical evidence was inconclusive regarding the nature of injuries, and the petitioners' continued incarceration served no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that these observations were tentative and would not prejudice the trial. The judgment underscores the necessity of investigating cross-versions in criminal occurrences.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused in an FIR create a case of two versions?
  • Is vicarious liability automatically attracted when a case involves two conflicting versions of an occurrence?
  • Are injuries sustained by an accused a valid basis for a plea of self-defense at the bail stage?
  • Can an accused be granted bail when the prosecution fails to explain injuries sustained by them during the same occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Aleem Ullah son of Said Rahman vs Khan Pervez & others2024 PHC 228, 2025 PCRLJ 690 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-27
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtunseen occurrencecircumstantial evidencelast-seen evidenceburden of proofcorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court in a murder case involving FIR No. 202 dated 31.08.2018. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in the absence of direct eyewitness accounts, and whether the medical, last-seen, and circumstantial evidence sufficiently corroborated the charges. The Peshawar High Court held that the occurrence was entirely unseen and un-witnessed, that the prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden of proof, and that joint recoveries and unproven motives cannot substitute for substantive evidence. The court reaffirmed that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, upholding the trial court's judgment extending the benefit of the doubt to the respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution's failure to establish direct or ocular evidence renders circumstantial and medical evidence insufficient for conviction?
  • Does the shifting of the burden of proof under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 absolve the prosecution from discharging its initial onus of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can corroborative evidence such as recoveries of weapons sustain a conviction in the absence of substantive primary evidence?
  • Is a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Alay Javed Zaidi vs Habibullah & Others2024 SCP 63, 2024 SCMR 781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-07
  fair rentchange of ownershiplandlord and tenantwillful defaultstatutory noticecommercial tenancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court of Sindh, which had upheld the concurrent findings of the lower rent fora. The dispute arose when the respondent purchased a commercial property and sought the determination of fair rent under Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The petitioner-tenant contended that he had no notice of the change of ownership under Section 18 of the Ordinance and that the enhanced rent was unjustified. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the previous landlady's written communication returning the rent and directing payment to the new owner, as well as the filing of the fair rent application itself, constituted substantial compliance and sufficient notice of the change of ownership. On the issue of fair rent, the Court reiterated that all four factors under Section 8 of the Ordinance need not co-exist. Given the commercial nature of the locality and the massive economic changes since the inception of the tenancy in 1974, the Court found the enhancement justified and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the filing of a legal application by a new landlord constitutes substantial compliance with the notice requirement of change of ownership under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Is it mandatory for all four factors listed in Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 to co-exist for a Rent Controller to determine and enhance fair rent?
  • Does a tenant's continued deposition of rent in the name of a previous landlord, despite having actual knowledge of the transfer of ownership, constitute willful default?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Akber vs The State2024 MLD 509 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-04
  murderretracted confessionjudicial confessionbenefit of doubtexamination of accusedcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved whether an un-witnessed murder could be established solely through a retracted judicial confession and a disputed extra-judicial chit, and whether the mandatory legal requirements for recording a confessional statement and examining the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were met. The Sindh High Court held that the confessional statement was legally worthless due to the Magistrate's failure to observe mandatory statutory precautions and guidelines, that retracted tainted confessions cannot corroborate each other, and that un-confronted incriminating evidence cannot be used for conviction. The court laid down the principle that failure to put incriminating circumstances to an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 renders such evidence inadmissible for conviction, and that a single reasonable doubt arising in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained solely on the basis of a retracted judicial confession when the recording Magistrate failed to observe mandatory statutory precautions under Section 164 and Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an incriminating piece of evidence that was not put to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to support a conviction?
  • Whether one tainted piece of evidence, such as a retracted confession, can corroborate another tainted piece of evidence under criminal jurisprudence?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution's case when material incriminating circumstances are omitted from the questions framed under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Alamgir Liaqat vs The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore & another2024 LHC 1803, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 5 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-24
  Performance Evaluation Reportadverse remarksservice appealexpunction of remarksprior counselingcivil servantadministrative instructions
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenges an order declining the expunction of remarks recorded in the appellant’s Performance Evaluation Report (PER). The core legal question is whether remarks labeled "advisory" by the reporting officer are, in substance, "adverse" and whether their recording without prior counseling violates established service instructions. The Court held that the remarks—advising the appellant to run his office with dignity and integrity—are inherently adverse rather than advisory, as they impugn the officer's professional conduct. The Court emphasized that the label assigned by a reporting officer is not determinative; the essence of the remarks dictates their nature. Furthermore, the Court established that reporting officers are mandatorily required to provide prior counseling regarding performance deficiencies before recording adverse remarks in a PER. As the respondent failed to demonstrate that any such counseling occurred, the remarks were found to be unsustainable. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the expunction of the adverse remarks from the appellant's service record.

  Questions settled

  • Are remarks in a Performance Evaluation Report labeled as 'advisory' by a reporting officer automatically exempt from being classified as 'adverse'?
  • Is a reporting officer required to provide prior counseling to a civil servant before recording adverse remarks in a Performance Evaluation Report?
  • What is the legal test for determining whether remarks in a Performance Evaluation Report are 'adverse' rather than 'advisory'?
  Read full judgment →
• Al-Makkah Press (Pvt.) Ltd. etc. vs Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan)2024 LHC 5472, 2025 CLD 160 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-18Read full judgment →
• Al-Baraka Bank (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized Representative vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1196 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-22
  superdarinarcotics controlcase propertytemporary custodymusharakah agreementinnocent ownercriminal trialevidence preservation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the dismissal of an application for the superdari (temporary custody) of a vehicle seized by the Anti-Narcotics Force in connection with an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellant bank claimed ownership via a Musharakah Agreement, seeking possession to recover funds following the borrower's default. The core legal questions were whether a seized vehicle can be released on superdari before being exhibited as evidence in court, and whether a bank can claim superdari to effect recovery of funds during a pending trial. The Court held that a vehicle seized under the Act cannot be released on superdari prior to its exhibition as evidence, as this is essential to preserve the integrity of the case property. Furthermore, the Court determined that superdari is intended for the personal use of an innocent owner, not for financial institutions to repossess and sell vehicles to recover debts. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the trial court correctly denied the application.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle seized in relation to an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be released on superdari before it is exhibited as evidence in the trial court?
  • Does the law permit the release of a vehicle on superdari to a financial institution for the purpose of repossessing and selling the vehicle to recover loan funds during the pendency of a criminal trial?
  • Is the release of a vehicle on superdari to an innocent owner an absolute right, or is it subject to the preservation of evidence in an ongoing criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Al Nafees Medical College, Islamabad vs The Pakistan Medical and Dental2024 IHC 40 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Al Ghazi Tractors Limited. vs Pakistan & Others.2024 SHC 120 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-12Read full judgment →
• Al Baraka Bank Pakistan Limited through Authorized Officers vs Eden2024 CLD 852 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-02Read full judgment →
• Akram Khan Durrani vs Malik Adnan Khan and others2024 PHC 312, 2025 PLD Peshawar 110 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-19Read full judgment →
• Akmal Khan and others vs Mst. Noorin and others2024 PHC 392, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 100 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-12-13Read full judgment →
• Akhtiar Ali Solangi vs Qamar-ud-Din and 6 others2024 YLR 304 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-01
  criminal transfer applicationcounter-casecross-casesmagistrate jurisdictionsentencing powerconflict of judgmentspropriety
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Transfer Application was filed by the applicant seeking the transfer of a criminal case pending before the First Class Judicial Magistrate to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge. The applicant contended that a counter-case arising from the same incident was already pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, and that the Magistrate lacked the jurisdiction to award the maximum punishment of ten years prescribed under Section 337-A(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent opposed, arguing that the transfer would deprive the accused of a forum of appeal. The High Court observed that while a Magistrate can try the offence, if the evidence warrants a punishment exceeding three years, the Magistrate must refer the case to the Sessions Court under Sections 346 and 347 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court held that propriety demands cross-cases arising from the same incident be tried by the same Court to avoid conflicting judgments. Consequently, the Court allowed the application and transferred the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether cross-cases or counter-cases arising out of the same incident should be tried by the same court to avoid conflicting judgments?
  • What procedure must a First Class Magistrate follow if, during a trial, they find that the appropriate punishment exceeds their statutory sentencing limit of three years?
  • Does the potential deprivation of one forum of appeal prevent the transfer of a magistrate-level case to the Sessions Court when a counter-case is already pending there?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Nasir Ahmed vs Province of Punjab through District Collector Gujrat2024 SCP 361, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 1268 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-09
  inheritance mutationlaw of limitationtime-barred suitconcurrent findingsprocedural delaycivil procedurestatute of repose
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition challenged the dismissal of a suit regarding the validity of an inheritance mutation sanctioned in 1982, which the petitioner contested in 2009. The core legal question was whether the law of limitation applies to inheritance disputes and if the petitioner’s 27-year delay was excusable. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the suit was time-barred. The Court held that the law of limitation is not inapplicable to inheritance cases and that the petitioner failed to justify the delay. The Court reaffirmed that statutes of limitation are statutes of peace and repose designed to provide certainty in human affairs. It emphasized the principle 'vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt,' noting that the law assists the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights. Furthermore, the Court held that a plaintiff must specifically plead grounds for exemption from limitation in the plaint, and failure to do so, combined with an extraordinary delay, renders the claim untenable.

  Questions settled

  • Is the law of limitation applicable to suits involving inheritance disputes?
  • Does a plaintiff have a duty to specifically plead grounds for exemption from the law of limitation in the plaint?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of perversity or arbitrariness?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Gul (Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Ashiq And 72024 LHC 5239, 2025 CLC 670 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-13Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali, Civil Judge Ist Class, Lahore vs The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore2024 LHC 5444, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 434 · Lahore High Court
  judicial independencedisciplinary proceedingsminor penaltiesstatutory interpretationcivil servantjudicial immunityservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenges disciplinary proceedings initiated against a Civil Judge, resulting in minor penalties of withholding an increment and promotion. The appellant contended that judicial actions cannot form the basis of disciplinary proceedings absent proof of extraneous considerations, and that the relevant rules do not permit the simultaneous imposition of multiple minor penalties. The Court held that judicial officers enjoy immunity for official duties; erroneous judicial orders are subject to appellate review, not disciplinary action, unless mala fide intent is established. Regarding the statutory interpretation of Rule 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1999, the Court determined that the word 'or' is disjunctive. Consequently, the disciplinary authority cannot combine multiple minor penalties such as withholding both an increment and promotion simultaneously. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned penalties were set aside, emphasizing that protecting judicial independence is paramount to prevent a chilling effect on the subordinate judiciary's functioning.

  Questions settled

  • Can disciplinary proceedings be initiated against a Judicial Officer solely based on the quality of their judicial orders?
  • Does the word 'or' in Rule 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1999, allow for the simultaneous imposition of multiple minor penalties?
  • What is the scope of immunity for Judicial Officers under the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs The State and others2024 YLR 1915 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-07
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRmedical evidenceprivate complaintacquittalcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from a private complaint based on an FIR for murder and attempt to murder. The core legal questions involve the credibility of an uncorroborated ocular account, the effect of an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, the implications of failing to record the statement of an injured witness who was vitally stable, and the evidentiary value of recoveries and motive when the primary prosecution evidence is unreliable. The Lahore High Court held that unexplained delay in the FIR, the absence of the injured's statement despite availability, and doubtful eyewitness presence rendered the prosecution's case untrustworthy. The appellate court laid down that conviction in a capital case must rest on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt, and where reasonable doubt arises, the benefit must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the appellant's acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR create a doubt regarding the authenticity of the prosecution's case?
  • Can medical evidence alone serve to identify the accused and corroborate the ocular account without independent supporting evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an alleged weapon recovery when the primary prosecution evidence has been disbelieved and no crime empties were recovered from the spot?
  • Does an unproved motive suffice to sustain a conviction for murder in the absence of reliable eyewitness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali Meo, Shahid Mohsin, Hasnain Ayub Siddiqui vs Province of Sindh2024 SHC 1406 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-31Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali and others vs The State and others2024 YLR 2554 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-09-25
  criminal appealocular evidencesupplementary statementidentification paradeforensic science laboratory reportafterthoughtconvictionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal appeal and revision petition against a trial court judgment convicting the appellants for murder and causing firearm injuries under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of a supplementary statement implicating an accused not named in the FIR, and the weight of forensic reports where weapons and empties were submitted for analysis simultaneously. The Court held that while the prosecution successfully established the guilt of two appellants through consistent ocular accounts and medical evidence, the conviction of the third appellant, who was implicated solely through a supplementary statement after the FIR, was unsustainable. The Court ruled that such supplementary statements are afterthoughts and that identification in court without a prior identification parade is unsafe. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that sending crime weapons and empties to the forensic laboratory together diminishes the evidentiary value of the forensic report. Consequently, the Court maintained the convictions of two appellants while acquitting the third and dismissing the revision petition for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the submission of crime weapons and bullet empties to a forensic laboratory simultaneously diminish the evidentiary value of the forensic report?
  • Is an accused person's nomination in a supplementary statement after the registration of an FIR considered a reliable basis for conviction?
  • Can an accused be convicted based on in-court identification if no formal identification parade was conducted during the investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Akd Investment Management Limited vs Director (Adjudication2024 CLD 762 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2024-04-17Read full judgment →
• Akd Investment Management Limited vs Commissioner (SCD)2024 CLD 768 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2024-04-17Read full judgment →
• Akbar Shah and others vs Ayub Khan and others2024 PHC 342 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-22Read full judgment →
• Akbar Shah and 4 others vs The State2024 YLR 1939 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-15
  murdereyewitness testimonyburden of proofspecial pleaforensic evidencecriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellants for murder and related offences arising from a dispute over property ownership. The core legal questions concern the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the impact of discrepancies in the FIR regarding the time of the incident and weapon descriptions, and the burden of proof when the accused raises a special plea of self-defense. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent eyewitness accounts, which were corroborated by medical evidence and forensic reports matching recovered weapons with crime scene empties. The Court rejected the defense's arguments regarding minor discrepancies in the FIR and medical certificates, noting that such errors were inadvertent and did not undermine the core prosecution narrative. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that once a special plea is raised by the accused, the burden shifts to them to prove it, which the appellants failed to do. The conviction was upheld, establishing that minor inconsistencies in witness statements or site plans do not invalidate a case supported by overwhelming direct and forensic evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a minor discrepancy in the time of the incident recorded in an FIR invalidate the entire prosecution case?
  • Can a site plan prepared by a Tapedar override the direct oral account of eyewitnesses regarding the place of occurrence?
  • When an accused raises a special plea of self-defense, does the burden of proof shift to the accused to substantiate that plea?
  • Do minor discrepancies in the description of weapons in an FIR, when compared to forensic recovery reports, create reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Defence Islamabad2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 11 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service appealdismissal from servicedisciplinary inquirymisconductdepartmental appealpersonal hearingconfession of guilt
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, filed under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, challenged the major penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the appellant for misconduct, specifically involving drug consumption and criminal activities. The core legal questions concerned whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by procedural irregularities, including the failure to hold a regular inquiry, non-supply of the inquiry report, and denial of personal hearing. The Tribunal examined the record and found that a regular inquiry committee was indeed constituted, and the appellant had explicitly confessed to the charges of consuming hashish and obtaining a fake arms license during the inquiry proceedings. Furthermore, the record confirmed that the appellant was afforded a personal hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned dismissal order was passed after due process and did not warrant interference. The Tribunal also established that when a department receives a departmental appeal, it is obligated to forward it to the proper forum rather than returning it to the appellant for resubmission. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a department obligated to forward a departmental appeal to the proper authority if it was submitted through the wrong channel?
  • Does a confession of guilt during a disciplinary inquiry satisfy the requirements for a valid dismissal order?
  • Can a service tribunal interfere with a dismissal order if a regular inquiry was conducted and the appellant was afforded a personal hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar @ Akbar Ali vs The State2024 SHC 1144 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-01
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausefamily disputetentative assessmentbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 506(ii), 509, 504, 114, 337-A(i), 337-F(i) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from a property dispute between real brothers. The trial court had earlier dismissed his bail plea. The applicant argued that the offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that the FIR was delayed. The Sindh High Court observed that the dispute was between family members, the challan had been submitted, the applicant was attending court regularly, and there was no allegation of tampering with evidence or misusing the concession of bail. Relying on established jurisprudence regarding tentative assessment and misuse of bail, the court held that the applicant successfully made out a case for pre-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed, and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  • What is the effect of the absence of any attempt by the accused to tamper with prosecution evidence or misuse bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Khan vs Secretary, Defence and 3 others2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 169 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2023-06-08
  service appealtransfer of casedominus litisFederal Service Tribunaljurisdictionaccess to justicecamp office
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a miscellaneous petition filed by the respondents seeking the transfer of service appeals from the Federal Service Tribunal’s Karachi Camp Office to its principal seat in Islamabad. The petitioners argued that transferring the appeals was necessary to prevent conflicting judgments, as similar cases were pending in Islamabad. The respondent/appellant opposed the transfer, citing financial hardship and his employment posting in Karachi. The Tribunal held that while it is a special forum established under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, there is no strict rule mandating the transfer of appeals between camp offices and the principal seat merely due to similar legal questions. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant, as dominus litis, possesses the right to choose the forum, and the risk of conflicting judgments does not constitute sufficient grounds for transfer, particularly when it would impose undue financial burden and hinder access to swift justice. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the petition, noting also that separate transfer applications should have been filed for distinct appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service appeal be transferred from a camp office to the principal seat of the Federal Service Tribunal solely on the ground of pending similar litigation?
  • Does the doctrine of dominus litis apply to the selection of a forum for service appeals?
  • Is the risk of conflicting judgments sufficient ground to transfer a service appeal between different benches of the Federal Service Tribunal?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the transfer of suits applicable to the transfer of service appeals between Tribunal benches?
  Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Khan and others vs Sher Rehman and others2024 PHC 186, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 156, 2025 CLC 365 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Husain vs The State & another2024 PHC 406 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-12
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtdying declarationadverse inferenceabscondencemurder trialappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the acquittal of the respondent accused in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's acquittal. The Court found the prosecution's case riddled with inconsistencies: the complainant’s claim of escaping unhurt while standing in the line of fire was implausible; there were irreconcilable discrepancies in the time of death between the medical evidence and witness statements; and the prosecution failed to produce a key eyewitness, warranting an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Furthermore, the alleged telephonic dying declaration was deemed unreliable, and the motive remained unproven. Reaffirming established jurisprudence, the Court held that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the accused's guilt, the benefit must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace. Abscondence alone was held insufficient to prove guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine a material witness warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is abscondence alone sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused person?
  • What is the legal consequence of a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a telephonic call be relied upon as a dying declaration if the prosecution fails to establish the victim's capacity to speak or the authenticity of the call?
  Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Ali Shiraz vs Commissioner Inland Revenue PeshawarPTCL 2024 CL. 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-03
  amended assessmentdelegation of powerDeputy Commissioner Inland Revenuejurisdictionunauthorized officerincome tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a challenge to an amended assessment order passed under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether an amended assessment order passed by a Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue, without proof of valid delegation of power from the Commissioner, was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that under Section 177 and Section 210 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, any delegation of the Commissioner's power to amend an assessment under Section 122 could not be made to an officer below the rank of Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue. Since the respondent failed to produce any record showing that the Deputy Commissioner was duly authorized or delegated the requisite powers, the court ruled that the amended assessment order was passed by an unauthorized officer. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned amended assessment order as being in contravention of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can an amended assessment order under Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 be passed by a Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue without a valid delegation of power?
  • Whether the Commissioner Inland Revenue can delegate the power to amend an assessment to an officer below the rank of Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue under Section 210(1A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001?
  • What is the legal status of an amended assessment order passed by an officer who has not been shown to possess the requisite delegated authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsan vs The State2024 YLR 578 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-30
  criminal appealabductionmedical evidence contradictionSection 342 CrPC examinationdefective chargedelayed FIRbenefit of doubtindependent witnessesacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The High Court of Sindh heard a criminal appeal filed by the appellant challenging his conviction and sentences under Sections 452, 336, 337-A(iii), and 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jacobabad. The prosecution alleged that the appellant abducted the victim on a motorcycle to commit Zina and caused her severe injuries by throwing her onto the road. The core legal issues centered on the effect of material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, procedural defects in framing the charge and examining the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C., unexplained delay of 28 hours in lodging the FIR, and the failure to associate independent witnesses. The High Court observed that the victim's claim of being tortured with an iron rod directly contradicted the charge, the Section 342 examination, and the medical evidence attributing injuries to a road traffic accident. Holding that these vital defects and contradictions created serious doubt, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to put a material incriminating allegation to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the conviction?
  • What is the evidentiary effect when the ocular testimony of the alleged victim directly contradicts the medical evidence regarding the mode and cause of injuries?
  • Whether an unexplained 28-hour delay in lodging a First Information Report raises a presumption of deliberation and consultation fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 be drawn against the prosecution for non-association of independent witnesses at a busy public place under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Ullah vs Muhammad Nasir Cheema and 3 others2024 MLD 1233 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-15Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Shoaib vs Election Commission of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and others2024 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 139 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Ahsan Liaqat and three others vs University of the Punjab etc2022 LHC 4338, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1013 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-15
  compulsory retirementdepartmental inquiryexamination malpracticeadmission of guiltcompetent authorityprocedural irregularityuniversity employees
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment decides multiple writ petitions filed by former employees of the University of the Punjab who were subjected to major penalties (initially dismissal/removal, later converted to compulsory retirement) following departmental proceedings under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA Act, 2006). The petitioners were accused of forgeries and malpractices in compiling examination results. They challenged the proceedings on various procedural grounds, including the competency of the initiating and signing authorities, non-adherence to inquiry timelines, and lack of criminal prosecution. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Vice Chancellor and Registrar acted within their lawful authority. Crucially, the Court observed that several petitioners had admitted their guilt in their replies, which established their involvement under settled Supreme Court precedent. The Court emphasized that strict procedural technicalities do not vitiate departmental inquiries where substantial compliance is met and guilt is established, particularly in educational institutions where maintaining academic integrity is paramount.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a joint inquiry under the PEEDA Act, 2006 is valid if initiated by the competent authority of the senior-most accused employee?
  • What is the legal effect of an employee's voluntary admission of guilt during departmental inquiry proceedings?
  • Can minor procedural deficiencies or delays in submitting an inquiry report vitiate the final penalty if the guilt of the accused is established?
  • Does the non-initiation of criminal proceedings bar or invalidate simultaneous departmental disciplinary action against a public servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Khalid vs Station House Officer, Police Station Sachal Malir, Karachi2024 YLR 925 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-15Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Allahi Zaheer and another vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Primary and Secondary Healthcare Department Punjab Lahore and three others2024 LHC 3038 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-09Read full judgment →
• Ahmedullah and another vs Province of Balochistan through Addl. Chief2024 PLD Balochistan 129 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
• Ahmed and another vs The State2024 SHC 1198 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-18
  criminal appealmurder convictioneye-witness testimonyinjured witnessappreciation of evidencerecovery of weaponfalse implicationSection 302 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of two individuals and causing injuries to others, arising from a dispute over a plot of land. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the defense's claims of false implication and enmity. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's conviction and sentence. The court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through the consistent and reliable testimony of six eye-witnesses, including injured witnesses, whose accounts were corroborated by medical evidence, recovery of the murder weapon on the appellant's pointation, and positive forensic reports. The court affirmed that the evidence of related witnesses is admissible and reliable unless specific enmity is proven, and that the testimony of injured eye-witnesses carries significant weight. Furthermore, the court ruled that minor contradictions in witness statements do not invalidate the prosecution's case when the overall evidence forms a consistent, confidence-inspiring chain of events.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted based on the testimony of related eye-witnesses in the absence of proven enmity?
  • Does the testimony of an injured eye-witness carry more evidentiary weight than that of an uninjured witness?
  • Are minor contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case?
  • Is corroboration of eye-witness testimony a mandatory requirement in criminal cases where the eye-witness account is found reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed and another vs Rehmat Ali & others deceased2024 SHC 146, 2024 PLD Sindh 305 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-16Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali Talpur vs Sub-Registrar Latifabad and 3 others2024 MLD 1985 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-22Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ullah and others vs District Education Officer (Male), Buner and others2024 SCP 306, 2024 SCMR 2004, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-10-27
  civil servantspromotion eligibilityjurisdictional barService Tribunalconstitutional petitionregularization of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment that dismissed on merits a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petitioners, regularized civil servants, had challenged their exclusion from a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting on the grounds of eligibility. The core legal question was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain a petition regarding a civil servant's eligibility for promotion in light of the constitutional bar under Article 212. The Supreme Court held that eligibility for promotion constitutes a term and condition of service, falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunals Act 1974. The Court distinguished eligibility from fitness, clarifying that while fitness is excluded from the Tribunal's jurisdiction, eligibility is not. Consequently, the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 was completely ousted by Article 212, rendering the petition unmaintainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding the High Court's findings on merits to be per incuriam.

  Questions settled

  • Does the determination of a civil servant's eligibility for promotion fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • How does the legal concept of eligibility for promotion differ from the concept of fitness for promotion under civil service laws?
  • Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply even when a departmental order is alleged to be without jurisdiction, mala fide, or in violation of fundamental rights?
  • Can a High Court entertain a constitutional petition under Article 199 regarding the terms and conditions of a civil servant's service?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Sikander vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Aeoi Zone, Lahore2024 SCP 298, 2025 SCMR 140, 2025 PTD 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-15
  civil reviewincome tax assessmentconcealment of assetse-portaladditional evidenceerror apparent on the face of the recordscope of review
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil review petition was filed against the Supreme Court's order dismissing a civil petition, which had challenged a Lahore High Court decision. The core issue arose from a tax assessment under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, where the petitioner was charged to tax for allegedly concealing a UK bank account. The petitioner contended that the relevant documents, including foreign loan details, were already e-filed on the FBR e-Portal, but the High Court had treated them as impermissible 'new evidence' produced for the first time before the Appellate Tribunal. By a majority of two to one, the Supreme Court allowed the review petition and recalled its earlier order. The majority held that the petitioner's legal and factual grounds regarding the availability of documents on the e-Portal had escaped the Court's attention during the initial dismissal, necessitating a re-appraisal of the record. Conversely, the dissenting opinion emphasized that the scope of review is strictly limited under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and cannot be used for re-appreciating evidence or re-arguing appellate grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the Supreme Court to consider key factual and legal grounds raised in a petition constitutes a sufficient reason to allow a civil review petition?
  • Can documents that were allegedly available on the FBR e-Portal at the time of filing tax returns be treated as impermissible 'new evidence' if produced before the Appellate Tribunal?
  • What is the scope of the Supreme Court's review jurisdiction under Article 188 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a party seek re-appreciation of evidence or re-argue grounds already decided at the appellate stage under the guise of a review petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Mukhtar and others vs Government of the Punjab through Chief2024 PLC (C.S.) 376 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-12
  service lawpromotion quotaprofessional engineerB.Tech degree equivalenceconstitutional petitionengineering profession
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the vires of a notification issued by the Punjab government amending the Punjab Communication and Works Department (Engineering Posts Qualifications and Conditions Recruitment) Rules, 1985, to reserve a 5% quota for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer for holders of B.Tech (Hons) or BS Engineering Technology degrees, thereby diluting the 100% quota previously reserved for Sub-Divisional Officers holding professional engineering qualifications. The core legal question is whether non-engineers holding B.Tech or technology degrees can be appointed or promoted to posts involving professional engineering work in contravention of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975. The Lahore High Court allowed the petitions and set aside the impugned notification as being without lawful authority. The court held that posts such as Executive Engineer requiring the performance of professional engineering work can only be filled by qualified professional engineers registered with the Pakistan Engineering Council, and the government cannot permit non-engineers to perform or supervise professional engineering functions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether posts requiring the performance of professional engineering work can be filled by persons holding B.Tech (Hons) or BS Engineering Technology degrees?
  • Does the Pakistan Engineering Council Act regulate employment or restrict government posts to registered professional engineers where professional engineering work is involved?
  • Can the provincial government alter promotion criteria to permit non-engineers to hold posts that require the discharge of professional engineering functions?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hashaam Zafar vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Faisalabad2024 PTD (Trib.) 1062 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2024-02-26Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali vs The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar, etc2024 SCP 307, 2024 SCP 29, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 969, PLJ 2024 SC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-07
  post-arrest bailcross-casesfurther inquirycriminal procedurebail discretionconcurrent findingscounter-version
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the lower courts in a criminal case involving cross-versions of an incident resulting in deaths and injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the principle of 'cross-cases' or 'further inquiry' when both parties were armed and engaged in a mutual altercation, despite the petitioner's failure to explicitly plead self-defence in the police daily diary. The majority of the Supreme Court held that the petitioner's version did not constitute a genuine cross-version because it failed to explain the motive or the circumstances of the firing, and thus declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The key principle laid down by the majority is that for a matter to qualify as a cross-case warranting bail, the counter-version must provide a distinct and coherent narrative of the incident, rather than a mere assertion of a counter-case, and the absence of a specific plea of self-defence or motive in the initial record may undermine such a claim.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere assertion of a counter-case in a police daily diary automatically constitute a cross-case for the purpose of granting bail?
  • Is a court required to interfere with concurrent orders of lower courts refusing bail if no illegality is pointed out?
  • Can a party claim the benefit of a cross-case for bail purposes if their version fails to explain the motive or circumstances of the firing?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Siraj Ahmed Pathan, Tufail Ahmed Khaskheli vs The State2023 SHC 740, 2024 MLD 1317 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-12
  pre-arrest bailofficial misconductland revenue recordfurther inquirydocumentary evidencefraudulent mutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns pre-arrest bail applications filed by public officials accused of offences under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, regarding the alleged fraudulent transfer of state land. The core legal question was whether the applicants, who acted upon official directives to record land entries, were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the prosecution's reliance on documentary evidence and disputed signatures. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as the case required further inquiry. The Court reasoned that the applicants acted in compliance with official orders, the alleged forgery of signatures remained a matter for trial, and the main beneficiary of the transaction had already been granted bail. Furthermore, the Court noted that the entries were made prior to a Supreme Court-imposed ban on land mutations. The key principle established is that where the prosecution's case rests on documentary evidence and the accused's role involves administrative compliance with superior orders, a case for further inquiry is made out, justifying the grant of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the reliance on documentary evidence that requires forensic verification constitute grounds for 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can public officials be denied bail when they have acted in compliance with written orders from their superiors, even if those orders are later alleged to be fraudulent?
  • Does the existence of a pending civil suit regarding the same subject matter impact the determination of bail in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Afzal Khan vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2024 PHC 382 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ahmad Nawaz vs Manzoor Hussain2024 SCP 205, 2024 SCMR 1525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-31
  pre-arrest bailfraud and forgeryfurther inquirydelay in FIRliberty of a person
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order declining pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in a case registered under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of fraud, forgery, and the conversion of a lease agreement into a sale agreement through blank stamp papers. The Supreme Court of Pakistan converted the petitions into appeals and allowed them, setting aside the impugned orders and granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. The holding is grounded on the principle that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of approximately five months, a status quo order was already in the field, and the case fell within the purview of further inquiry. Furthermore, the court reiterated the established principle that liberty is a precious constitutional right and it is generally better to err in granting bail than in refusing it, as unjustified imprisonment cannot be adequately repaired upon eventual acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplainable delay in lodging an FIR for forgery and fraud constitutes a ground for further inquiry warranting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is it preferable to err in granting bail rather than refusing it in light of the constitutional right to personal liberty?
  • Whether the existence of a civil suit and a status quo order concerning the subject property impacts the grant of pre-arrest bail in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Afzaal Ahmed vs Sadia Safdar and another2024 LHC 3547, 2025 MLD 77 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ashraf vs Khursheed Ashraf and others2024 CLC 295 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmed Khan And Another vs Dilawar Khan, Etc.2024 IHC 82, 2024 MLD 316 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-09Read full judgment →
• Afaan Afzal s/o Muhammad Afzal vs State through Advocate-General,2024 SC AJK 36 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-08-22Read full judgment →
• Adnan S/O Muhammad Ali vs The State2024 SHC 736 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-08
  transfer of criminal casespeedy trialvacant courtCNS Courtinterest of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal transfer application was filed by the applicant Adnan seeking the transfer of Special Case No. 79 of 2022 from the Court of Control of Narcotic Substances-II to Control of Narcotic Substances-III, Karachi. The core legal question was whether a criminal case should be transferred to another court when the trial court is lying vacant, thereby jeopardizing the accused's fundamental right to a fair and speedy trial. The Sindh High Court held that the transfer of a matter from one court to another is permissible in exceptional circumstances and in the interest of justice, particularly when a vacant court causes indefinite delays and halts trial progress. The Court laid down the principle that to uphold the constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial and prevent an accused from facing indefinite detention without trial due to a vacant bench, a case may be transferred to another court of competent jurisdiction upon the consent of the prosecution and in the interest of judicial propriety.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal case be transferred to another court when the trial court is lying vacant?
  • Whether the right to a speedy trial justifies the transfer of a special case to another court?
  • Does judicial propriety demand the transfer of a case to avoid indefinite detention without trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Shafai vs The State and another2024 SCP 221, 2024 SCMR 1479, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-05
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayprevention of corruptionfair trialright to libertyabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the Lahore High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's post-arrest bail application in a case involving allegations of corruption, cheating, and extortion under Sections 161, 162, 109, and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The petitioner sought bail on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of his trial, having been detained for over a year without the trial being finalized. The prosecution opposed the bail, arguing that the delay was attributable to the petitioner due to his filing of an application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and granted bail. The Court held that the statutory right to bail due to delay, flowing from Articles 9 and 10A of the Constitution, cannot be denied unless the accused orchestrated a concerted, deliberate effort to delay the trial through frivolous or repetitive applications. Filing a single, legitimate application for protection of rights under Section 265-K does not constitute such a deliberate delay.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of a single application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a deliberate attempt by the accused to delay trial so as to deprive them of statutory bail?
  • What threshold of conduct or delay must the prosecution demonstrate to deny an accused bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • How should the statutory provisions governing bail on the ground of delay be interpreted in light of constitutional guarantees of liberty and fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Shafai vs The State & another2024 SCP 208, 2024 SCMR 1543, PLJ 2025 SC (Cr.C.) 11 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-06-05
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaycorruptionanti-money launderingfair trialabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant him post-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of financial irregularities and corruption under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, and the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010. The petitioner argued that he was entitled to bail on the statutory ground of delay, as the trial had not concluded despite his detention exceeding one year. The prosecution contended that the petitioner caused delays by filing multiple applications. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an accused in a non-capital case is entitled to bail if detained for over a year, unless the delay is due to their concerted effort or they are a hardened criminal. The Court held that filing applications to protect constitutional rights does not constitute a design to delay the trial. Finding no concerted effort to delay and that the petitioner was not a hardened criminal, the Court allowed the appeal and granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of procedural applications for the protection of constitutional rights by an accused constitute a concerted effort to delay trial under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What constitutes a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' for the purpose of denying statutory bail under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can mere mathematical counting of adjournments sought by the defense be sufficient to deny post-arrest bail on statutory grounds of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Sami Khan vs Government of Punjab through Additional Chief2024 PLJ Lahore 755 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Adnan Arif vs Province of Punjab etc2024 LHC 5811, 2025 CLC 550 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-10Read full judgment →
• Adnan Anwar vs Ijaz Ahmad & others2024 LHC 1638, 2024 PLJ Lahore 519 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-18Read full judgment →
• Adil Khan Bazai vs Election Commission of Pakistan and another2024 SCP 399, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-12
  defectionpolitical partyNational Assembly membershipElection Commission of Pakistandisqualificationindependent member
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the validity of a declaration of defection made by the Party Head of the Pakistan Muslim League (N) (PML(N)) against the appellant, Adil Khan Bazai, which had resulted in the loss of his National Assembly seat. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the procedural and substantive requirements for declaring a member of a political party as having defected were satisfied in the instant case. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned judgments passed by the Election Commission of Pakistan. The Court held that the declarations of defection made by the Party Head were not confirmed. Consequently, the Court ordered the restoration of the appellant's membership in the National Assembly, specifically clarifying that he holds this seat as an independent member rather than as a member of the PML(N) Parliamentary Party. The decision emphasizes the judicial scrutiny required regarding the process of disqualification based on alleged defection from a political party.

  Questions settled

  • Can a declaration of defection by a Party Head be set aside if the procedural requirements are not met?
  • Does the restoration of a National Assembly seat following a set-aside defection order imply the member retains their original party affiliation?
  • Is a member of the National Assembly who is cleared of defection charges entitled to sit as an independent member?
  Read full judgment →
• Adil Khalil Sattar vs Saad Nasim Khan2024 LHC 5701 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-04Read full judgment →
• Adil & others vs Province of Sindh & Other2024 SHC 1192, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 55 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-15
  service matterdischarge from servicepolice constablesSindh Service Tribunaljurisdictional barconstitutional petitionArticle 212
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenged an order dated 20.09.2016 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tando Muhammad Khan, discharging the petitioners from service as police constables following scrutiny by an inquiry committee established pursuant to Supreme Court directions. The petitioners had previously assailed the discharge order before departmental authorities and the Sindh Service Tribunal, where their appeals were disposed of in terms of an apex court directive mandating reassessment by a Centralized Re-examination Committee. Having failed before that committee, the petitioners invoked the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 199, asserting that their discharge violated the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000, and constituted unlawful discrimination. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the dispute pertained strictly to terms and conditions of service falling squarely within the competence of the Service Tribunal, thereby barring writ jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated that an order of the Service Tribunal cannot be collaterally challenged via writ petition, and the appropriate forum for redress is the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the High Court from entertaining a constitutional petition under Article 199 regarding the discharge or removal of civil servants?
  • Can a party aggrieved by an order of the Service Tribunal challenge the underlying departmental action afresh before the High Court under Article 199 instead of approaching the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Can a claim of discrimination regarding another candidate's appointment serve to establish an independent right to appointment or reinstatement for an employee discharged from service?
  Read full judgment →
• Adg Ldi (Pvt.) Ltd vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Lahore2024 PTD (Trib.) 1090 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-09-11Read full judgment →
• Adeel Khalid Bajwa vs Bashir Ahmad Tahir,etc2023 LHC 4226, 2024 YLR 2813 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
• Adeel Baqai & Nafees Hafeez vs The State2024 SHC 698 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-03Read full judgment →
• Additional Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate of Appraisement (West), Customs House, Karachi vs M_s K. S. Sulemanji Esmailji and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Karachi2024 SCP 312, 2025 SCMR 121, 2025 PTD 260, PTCL 2025 CL. 209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-18
  customs dutytariff classificationPCT HeadingClassification Committeerefund claimHarmonised SystemExplanatory Notes
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding the correct tariff classification of imported 'BOPP' Printed Laminated Packaging Film (Metalized). The respondent-company sought a refund under Section 33 of the Customs Act 1969, claiming it paid excess customs duty due to an incorrect declaration of the PCT Heading. The Classification Committee determined the goods fell under PCT Heading 3920.2040 (attracting 25% duty) by applying Rule 3(c) of the General Rules for Interpretation. The Customs Appellate Tribunal and the High Court set aside this determination, substituting their own classifications. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that classification of goods is a highly specialized, technical job requiring expertise. The Court laid down that the Classification Committee, established pursuant to international commitments, is the competent body whose rulings carry a presumption of regularity. Such technical findings cannot be substituted by the Tribunal or High Court unless they are demonstrably arbitrary, fanciful, or in violation of the Rules of Interpretation and Explanatory Notes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Customs Appellate Tribunal or the High Court can substitute the technical findings of the Classification Committee without demonstrating that such findings are arbitrary or in violation of the Rules of Interpretation?
  • What is the legal status and evidentiary value of the classification rulings issued by the Classification Committee under the Customs Act 1969?
  • How should Rule 3(c) of the General Rules for Interpretation be applied when multiple specific PCT headings merit equal consideration?
  • Are the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System considered an authentic source of interpretation under the Customs Act 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Adamjee Life Assurance Co Limited vs The President of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 112 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-10Read full judgment →
• Adam Ali Mohammad Ali Lotia, since deceased through his legal heirs (i)2024 SHC 648 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abu Bakar vs The State2024 SHC 154 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-19
  illegal weapon possessionbenefit of doubtforensic evidencecriminal revisionsafe custody of case propertyinterested witnessstandard of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, which convicted the applicant under Section 13-E of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, for illegal possession of a firearm. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of the weapon beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant delays in the recovery process and the transmission of the weapon to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody of the weapon during the seven-day delay before forensic submission, noting the absence of malkhana entries and the failure to examine the relevant custodians. Furthermore, the Court observed that the prosecution witnesses were interested and that the applicant had already been acquitted in the main case to which this recovery was allegedly linked. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, holding that the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the benefit of any doubt in criminal proceedings must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in sending a recovered weapon to a forensic laboratory, without explanation, create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Is the failure to produce malkhana entries or examine the malkhana in-charge fatal to the prosecution's case in an arms possession trial?
  • Must the benefit of doubt in a criminal case be extended to the accused as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Abrar Ahmad Farooq and others vs The State and others2024 SCP 178, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 815 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-18
  double murderprivate vendettacourt premisesterrorismmitigating circumstanceslife imprisonmentscheduled offencepolice witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a double murder committed within the court premises of the Sessions Court, Attock. The appellants had fired upon and killed two handcuffed individuals in police custody to avenge the previous murder of their father. The trial court had convicted the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, sentencing them to death. The Supreme Court examined whether the offense fell within the definition of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and whether the death penalty was appropriate. The Court held that since the motive was a private vendetta with no design to create terror or insecurity, the conviction under Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 could not be sustained, even though the offense was triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court as a scheduled offense. Furthermore, the Court recognized the motive of avenging a father's murder as a mitigating circumstance, thereby reducing the death sentences to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a murder committed within court premises to avenge a private enmity automatically constitute an act of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can an Anti-Terrorism Court convict an accused under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for a scheduled offense if there is no design to create fear or insecurity?
  • Whether the motive of avenging the murder of a close relative (such as a father) can be treated as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can the testimony of police officials who witnessed an occurrence while escorting custody-prisoners be relied upon to sustain a conviction in the absence of animus?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Sherani vs Tahir Sherani through legal heirs & others2022 PHC 286, 2024 CLC 333 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-21Read full judgment →
• Abid Shahid Zuberi & Ors vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary &2024 SCP 373, 2025 SCMR 301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-17
  withdrawal of petitionArticle 184(3)proposed legislationhypothetical questionslocus standijudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and a Constitution Petition filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging a proposed legislative document that had not yet been introduced in Parliament. The Registrar's office raised several objections, including that the petition sought to challenge a non-existent law, failed to array the appropriate legislative members as parties, violated Article 248 of the Constitution regarding the immunity of certain respondents, and posed hypothetical questions. Furthermore, objections were raised regarding the petitioners' standing as advocates and members of the Pakistan Bar Council, suggesting they lacked authorization from their respective bodies. Upon the engagement of senior counsel, the petitioners sought to withdraw both the appeal and the unnumbered Constitution Petition. The Supreme Court, acknowledging the request made by the petitioners and their counsel, dismissed the appeal and the petition as withdrawn. The judgment essentially records the procedural termination of the proceedings at the request of the petitioners, without delving into the merits of the constitutional challenges raised.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution be maintained against a proposed law that has not yet been introduced in Parliament?
  • Does Article 248 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 provide immunity to certain respondents from being arrayed as parties in a constitutional petition?
  • Are lawyers permitted to initiate litigation as members of the Pakistan Bar Council without authorization from their respective representative bodies?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Khan & others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1206 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-31Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain, Mushtaq Ahmad vs The State, Abid Hussain etc2024 SCP 232, 2024 SCMR 1608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-26
  murdercriminal appealdelay in FIRocular accountrelated witnessesbenefit of doubtmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, arising from a majority decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, examines the sustainability of a murder conviction under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related eye-witnesses, the effect of delay in lodging the First Information Report, the impact of an unproved or mysterious motive, and the reliability of ocular accounts corroborated by medical evidence. The majority of the Court held that delayed reporting, inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative, and doubts regarding the weapon recovery rendered the case against the appellant doubtful, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence. Conversely, the dissenting opinion maintained that related witnesses and plausible explanations for delay sufficiently established guilt. The legal principles laid down reaffirm that while related witnesses are not inherently unreliable, material discrepancies, delayed reporting without proper foundation, and doubtful recoveries can create reasonable doubt, warranting the benefit of acquittal to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in lodging the First Information Report is fatal to the prosecution case when explained?
  • Does the mere close relationship of a witness with the deceased render their testimony untrustworthy?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case if the alleged motive is not proved or remains shrouded in mystery?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular testimony when recovery evidence is declared inconsequential?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain Talpur and others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 588, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1186 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-22
  pensionary benefitsright to livelihoodservice benefitsconstitutional petitionadministrative delaydisciplinary actiongovernment employees
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple petitions filed by retired government employees and their families regarding the non-payment of pensionary and service benefits. The core legal question was whether the government or corporate bodies like Market Committees could withhold these benefits due to administrative delays or alleged lack of funds. The Court held that pension is a regular source of livelihood, protected by the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. It is not a bounty at the mercy of authorities, and the plea of insufficient funds is insufficient to deny these rights. The Court affirmed that pensionary benefits cannot be seized or withheld under the Pension Act, 1871. Consequently, the Court directed the Chief Secretary of Sindh to constitute a committee to resolve the outstanding pension claims within one month, recalculate the benefits including accrued increases, and initiate disciplinary proceedings against officials responsible for the unjustified delays. This judgment reinforces the principle that pension is a fundamental right and its denial constitutes a violation of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right to pension protected under the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution?
  • Can government departments or corporate bodies withhold pensionary benefits on the ground of lack of funds?
  • Does the government have the legal authority to withhold gratuity and pension benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain Chandio vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh2024 PLD Sindh 448 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-07Read full judgment →
• Abid and 2 others vs The State2024 PCRLJ 790 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-14
  abduction for ransomrape and murderbenefit of the doubtidentification paradelast seen evidencematerial improvementhostile witnesspolice confessioncircumstantial evidenceanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for the abduction, rape, and murder of a seven-year-old girl. The core legal questions revolved around the reliability of the circumstantial last-seen evidence, the credibility of the identification parade and alleged ransom demands, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt due to major improvements in the complainant's statements, flawed identification proceedings, unnatural conduct regarding ransom demands, and inadmissible police confessions. The court laid down the principle that last-crumb circumstantial evidence and identification parades must be strictly scrutinized, material improvements in delayed statements cast severe doubt on the prosecution case, and the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether last-seen evidence requires strict corroboration from an independent and unimpeachable source to be relied upon?
  • Does a material improvement in a delayed further statement regarding a ransom demand cast serious doubt on the prosecution case?
  • Are confessions made in police custody without statutory safeguards admissible in evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of conducting a joint identification parade without proper descriptions or hulia given in earlier police statements?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs Secretary Local Govt. etc.2024 PHC 140 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-18Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman Khan vs Shafqat Ali Khan & 02 others2022 PHC 148, 2024 YLR 2366 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-09Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rauf Mahar vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary2024 PLC (C.S.) 1572 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-23
  deceased quotacivil servantscompassionate appointmentminoritylimitation periodconstitutional petitionspeaking orderSindh Civil Servants Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the legal heir of a deceased civil servant challenging the authorities' refusal to consider his appointment under the deceased quota. The petitioner's father died in service on 21.06.2010 when the petitioner was nine years old. After attaining majority, his claim was rejected on the ground that the application was barred by limitation under government policy. The core legal question was whether the two-year limitation cap under Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974 applied retrospectively to a minor whose parent died prior to 16.09.2014. The High Court held that per Supreme Court precedents, the two-year clog only applies to deaths occurring on or after 16.09.2014; for deaths occurring between 02.09.2002 and 15.09.2014, the limitation does not apply, and minor legal heirs become entitled to apply upon attaining majority. The petition was disposed of with directions to the Chief Secretary to decide the petitioner's application through a speaking order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the two-year limitation period under Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974 apply to legal heirs of civil servants who died in service prior to 16.09.2014?
  • When does the right to apply for compassionate appointment under the deceased employee quota accrue to a legal heir who was a minor at the time of the civil servant's death?
  • Can a government employment policy defeat the constitutional protections provided to families under Article 35 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Yaqoob & another vs Government of Sindh & others2024 SHC 18 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-12Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs The State2024 PHC 230, 2025 PCRLJ 220 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-06-26
  criminal appealmurder convictionocular evidencerelated witnessabscondanceforensic evidencesentence enhancementmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, while the connected criminal revision seeks enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions concern the reliability of ocular testimony from related witnesses, the impact of the FIR's contents, the corroborative value of medical evidence and forensic reports, and whether the trial court correctly assessed the motive and sentencing. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent and confidence-inspiring ocular accounts, which were corroborated by medical evidence and forensic analysis of weapon empties. The Court reaffirmed that related witnesses are not inherently interested witnesses and can be natural witnesses if the incident occurred in their presence. Furthermore, the Court held that the prompt reporting of the crime negated the possibility of deliberation. Regarding the revision, the Court found that the uncertainty surrounding the specific circumstances leading to the divorce and the motive justified the trial court's decision to impose life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. The appeal and revision were both dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a related witness be considered a natural witness in a murder case?
  • Does the failure to mention minute details in an FIR invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Is unexplained abscondance of an accused sufficient to prove guilt in a criminal trial?
  • Under what circumstances can a court refuse to enhance a sentence in a criminal revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Jumani and others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SCP 109, 2024 SCMR 1258, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 900 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-29
  suo motu jurisdictionArticle 199service regularizationcontractual employeesjudicial overreachvires of statuteright to fair trialArticle 10-A
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from civil appeals filed against a common judgment of the Sindh High Court, which dismissed constitutional petitions brought by contractual Deputy District Attorneys seeking service regularization under Section 3 of the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013. The High Court had unilaterally declared the 2013 Act ultra vires and ordered the reversal of regularizations without a direct constitutional challenge or giving notice to affected employees. The core legal questions pertained to whether the High Court possesses suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution and whether it exceeded its judicial powers in striking down a statute without hearing affected parties. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned High Court judgment, and remanded the constitutional petitions for fresh decision. The Apex Court held that High Courts lack suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 and cannot exercise powers beyond the scope of the petitions before them. Furthermore, invalidating regularizations without affording a right of hearing to affected employees violates Article 10-A and principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court possess suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Can a High Court declare a legislative enactment ultra vires when its constitutionality is not directly challenged by any party to the proceedings?
  • Does striking down service regularizations without issuing notice or affording a hearing to affected employees violate Article 10-A of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Channah vs The Administrative Committee & others2024 SCP 175, 2024 SCMR 1250, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 946 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-08
  subordinate judiciaryservice tribunal jurisdictionseniority fixationmaintainability of service appealadministrative committee ordersterms and conditions of servicebelated service appeals
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from an order passed by the Sindh Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's service appeal regarding seniority fixation for non-prosecution and on the ground of maintainability, holding that it could not be filed against the Administrative Committee of the High Court. The core legal questions involved whether a service appeal by a member of the subordinate judiciary against an administrative order of the High Court's Administrative Committee is maintainable before the Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, and whether long delays in deciding service appeals frustrate the administration of justice. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction under the relevant law to decide matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of members of the subordinate judiciary, including seniority, and that such appeals are maintainable against administrative orders affecting their terms and conditions. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a service appeal filed by a member of the subordinate judiciary against an administrative order of the High Court's Administrative Committee is maintainable before the Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal?
  • Does the Sindh Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal possess exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of judicial officers?
  • What is the effect of prolonged pendency of service appeals for decades on the rights of judicial officers and the administration of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah and others vs The State2024 MLD 134 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-02
  anti-terrorismcommon intentionbenefit of doubtcircumstantial evidenceillegal weaponsattempted murdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal anti-terrorism jail appeals challenging the convictions of three appellants for offences including assault on public servants, attempted murder, and illegal weapon possession. The core legal questions concerned whether the evidence sufficiently established the appellants' guilt, whether the incident constituted terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and whether the conviction of one appellant, who was empty-handed, was sustainable. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of the appellant Abdullah, who was empty-handed, as mere presence at the scene does not establish common intention. Consequently, his conviction was set aside. Regarding the other appellants, the Court found that while the recovery of weapons and forensic evidence supported convictions under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Sindh Arms Act, the charge of attempted murder was not proven due to the nature of the firing. Furthermore, the Court held that the incident did not constitute terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, as it lacked the requisite design to intimidate the public or government. The Court reaffirmed that incidents lacking terror-specific intent do not qualify as terrorism.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of an incident, without evidence of an overt act, satisfy the requirements for conviction under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an incident involving firing at police be classified as terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 if it lacks the specific design or intent to intimidate the public or government?
  • Is the offence of attempted murder under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 established where the accused engaged in aerial firing rather than direct shooting at the victim?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wasay Jokhio and another vs The State2024 YLR 962 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-26
  murderescape from lawful custodynegligent escapeAnti-Terrorism Act 1997eye-witness testimonydeath sentenceFSL report
  Summary & questions settled

  The High Court of Sindh considered two connected criminal appeals arising out of a incident wherein an accused in police custody shot dead one police officer, severely injured another, and escaped using a service pistol. The trial court convicted appellant Imtiaz for murder under Section 302(b), PPC, attempted murder under Section 324, PPC, and escape under Section 224, PPC, along with provisions of Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, sentencing him to death. The co-appellant Jokhio, a senior police officer, was convicted under Section 223, PPC for negligence in allowing the escape. Re-evaluating the evidence, the High Court held that the prosecution established Imtiaz's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on reliable eye-witness testimony, medical evidence, and ballistic recovery. However, relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court acquitted Imtiaz of the anti-terrorism charges because his sole object was to escape custody rather than design terror. Finding no mitigating circumstances, the court upheld the PPC convictions and death sentence for Imtiaz and sustained Jokhio's conviction for negligent escape.

  Questions settled

  • Does an act committed primarily to escape police custody fall within the definition of terrorism under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can a conviction for murder be solely founded on the credible testimony of an injured eye-witness?
  • Whether minor discrepancies regarding weapon serial numbers or FSL delays invalidate ballistic matching evidence in the absence of tampering?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid and others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 388 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor through L.Rs. and others vs Mst. Zahida Haroon and 3 others2024 YLR 254 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor son of Muhammad Ashraf owner of Mirpur Open Mri Poli2024 SC AJK 78 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor Abro vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2024 SHC 310, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 293 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-16
  deferment of promotioncivil servantdeputationPerformance Evaluation Reportdeclaration of assetsNAB referencevested right
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Section Officer in the Office Management Group, challenged the deferment of his promotion to BS-20 by the Central Selection Board (CSB) under Rule 7(i) and (j) of the Civil Servants Promotion (BS-18 to BS-21) Rules 2019. The petitioner argued that his deferment was unlawful as he had been acquitted of the criminal charges (NAB reference) that initially stalled his promotion, and that consideration for promotion is a legal right. The respondents contended that the petitioner was deferred due to pending criminal charges, failure to earn Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) while on deputation, and failure to submit asset declarations. The High Court of Sindh dismissed the petition, holding that the CSB's deferment was reasonable and lawful. The Court reiterated that while consideration for promotion is a right, a civil servant has no vested right to actual promotion. Since the petitioner failed to submit asset declarations and earn necessary PERs, and had defied repatriation orders, the deferment was justified.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant has a vested right to be promoted to a higher grade or post?
  • Can a civil servant's promotion be lawfully deferred due to the non-submission of annual asset declarations and failure to earn Performance Evaluation Reports?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to interfere with the Central Selection Board's decision to defer a promotion when the civil servant has failed to meet statutory criteria?
  Read full judgment →