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.

• Abdul Sattar through L.Rs Abdul Hameed vs Secretary, Ministry of Religious2023 SHC 768, 2024 CLC 2108 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Shah and others vs Syed Mubarak Shah and others2024 MLD 780 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Khan vs Muhammad Ibrahim (deceased) through L.Rs. and others2024 LHC 2227 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and others vs Abdullah and others2023 CLC 1079, 2024 PLJ Quetta 7 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar (deceased) through L.Rs vs Muhammad Yaseen (deceased)2024 LHC 3553, 2024 CLC 1812 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sami Kehar s/o Bashir Ahmed Kehar vs Amanullah and 03 others2024 SHC 1300 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad Thebo vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 578 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad Jatoi vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 640, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 430 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-29
  pensionary benefitslocus poenitentiaemove overpay fixationrecovery of arrearscivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired Head Dispenser of WAPDA Hospital Sukkur, challenged the recovery of Rs. 1,18,197 from his pensionary benefits. The respondent-WAPDA had reviewed his pay fixation from 1993, asserting that a move-over from BPS-06 to BPS-07 was erroneously granted without him completing the mandatory one-year stay at the maximum of the pay scale. The petitioner contended that the benefit was received bona fide and could not be recovered after a lapse of decades, invoking the principle of locus poenitentiae. The High Court observed that while an illegal order cannot create perpetual vested rights, a beneficiary who bona fide receives benefits under a lawful order without any misrepresentation on his part is protected under the exception to the principle of locus poenitentiae. Consequently, the Court halted the recovery of the amount from the petitioner's pensionary benefits and directed the competent authority of the respondents to reconsider the recovery decision within two weeks.

  Questions settled

  • Can a benefit granted to an employee and acted upon for decades be recovered from pensionary benefits upon retirement on the ground of an administrative mistake?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae protect a bona fide recipient of a financial benefit from subsequent recovery if the original order was passed by a competent authority?
  • Can a vested right be founded upon an administrative order that is inherently against the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Saeed vs Mrs. Naseem Khattak Humayun and others2024 IHC 34, 2024 CLD 611 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Saboor vs Dr. Jamil ur Rehman & others2024 PHC 174 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The State and another2024 YLR 1008 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-26
  post-arrest bailcyber stalkingprohibitory clauseelectronic crimesdigital evidenceinvestigation flaws
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two consolidated post-arrest bail petitions filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, seeking bail in FIR No. 116 of 2023 registered under Sections 21 and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 at Police Station FIA Cyber Crime Reporting Centre, Multan. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged offences fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and the investigating agency failed to collect essential digital evidence such as IP logs or verification from Meta Platforms, Inc. The Lahore High Court accepted the petitions and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners, holding that offences not falling within the prohibitory clause warrant bail as a rule and refusal as an exception, particularly where further incarceration would serve no useful purpose and the investigation is complete. The key principle laid down is that where statutory offences fall outside the prohibitory clause and lack supportive digital forensic verification at the tentative assessment stage, the accused are ordinarily entitled to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when offences fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does failure of the investigating agency to procure User Basic Subscriber Information and IP logs from service providers affect the tentative assessment for bail?
  • Is further incarceration justified when the investigation is complete and the accused are no longer required for investigative purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Province Of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 984 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Shaikh and others vs The State2024 YLR 70 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-25
  jail breakcriminal negligenceunder-trial prisonersprison rulesAnti-Terrorism Actescape from custodypublic servant negligencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal appeals were preferred against a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting prison officials and police personnel under Sections 223, 225-A PPC, and Section 7(g) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 following the escape of two high-profile under-trial prisoners (UTPs) from Central Prison Karachi. The core legal questions centered on what constitutes criminal negligence under Sections 223 and 225-A PPC, individual accountability among jail command hierarchies, and whether administrative jail oversight failures attract terrorism charges under the ATA. The High Court held that the prosecution established criminal negligence against senior prison management and specific gate/court constables whose direct duty failures and breach of Prison Rules enabled the UTPs to escape without valid production orders. However, clerical staff and constables assigned to unrelated beats were extended the benefit of doubt. Crucially, applying Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that gross negligence without an explicit design, intent, or purpose to cause terror does not constitute an act of terrorism. The convictions under PPC Sections 223 and 225-A were maintained for negligent officials, while all terrorism convictions under Section 7 of the ATA were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes criminal negligence for the purpose of Sections 223 and 225-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a public servant be held criminally liable for an escape from custody under Section 223 PPC absent a showing of personal negligence or breach of specific statutory duties?
  • Does criminal negligence by prison staff enabling the escape of high-profile prisoners constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 without an explicit design or intent to cause terror?
  • Can the sole uncorroborated statement of a co-accused be relied upon to sustain a conviction against another accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Khan Kanju vs Rana Muhammad Faraz Noon and two2024 LHC 1720 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Khan Kanju and others vs Election Commission of Pakistan2024 SCP 264, 2024 SCP 1902 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-12
  recount of voteselection petitionwrit jurisdictionElection Tribunalconsolidation of resultsconstitutional petitionReturned Candidate
  Summary & questions settled

  These Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal arose from disputes in the general elections of February 8, 2024, concerning the recount of ballot papers under Section 95(5) of the Elections Act 2017. In the subject constituencies, the margin of victory was within the statutory threshold, and the runner-up candidates applied for recounts. The Returning Officers rejected the applications, citing law-and-order disruptions or lack of substantiation. The Election Commission of Pakistan subsequently ordered recounts, which were challenged by the returned candidates in the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The High Court set aside the recount orders. The Supreme Court, by a 2 to 1 majority, set aside the High Court's judgments. The Court held that counting and recounting are administrative-ministerial acts, not judicial ones, and do not constitute a grievance under Article 199. Furthermore, the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the petitioners had an adequate alternative remedy via election petitions before the Election Tribunal under Article 225 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to stop or set aside a recount of ballot papers when an adequate alternative remedy exists before the Election Tribunal?
  • Does the amendment to Section 95(5) of the Elections Act 2017 remove the discretion of the Returning Officer to refuse a recount if the statutory margin of victory threshold is met?
  • Can a Returning Officer refuse to perform the statutory duty of recounting ballot papers on the ground of law and order situations or mob disruption?
  • Is the counting and recounting of ballot papers considered a judicial act or an administrative-ministerial act?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman etc vs Nazir Ahmad etc2024 LHC 4411, 2025 YLR 322 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman alias Rehman vs The State and another2024 PCRLJ 223 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-24
  quashment of FIRSection 561-A CrPCSection 265-K CrPCcriminal trespasscivil disputedacoityabuse of process of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking quashment of FIR No. 181/2011 registered under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as well as the resultant sessions proceedings, after the trial court repeatedly declined applications under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused armed with weapons trespassed into the complainant's house and looted valuables. The applicant contended that the matter was purely a civil property dispute over the ownership and possession of the bungalow, with prior FIRs on identical allegations resulting in acquittal and cancellation under B-class. The Sindh High Court held that powers under Section 265-K or Section 561-A may be exercised in exceptional circumstances where the charge is groundless and no probability of conviction exists. Because the applicant claimed ownership under pending civil litigation, an allegation of directing the complainant to vacate his own property did not constitute criminal trespass. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of an application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by a co-accused bar another accused from seeking the same relief?
  • Can an offence of criminal trespass be sustained against a party who asserts bona fide ownership and possession over the subject property which is already subject to pending civil litigation?
  • Are criminal proceedings liable to be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the dispute is primarily of a civil nature and previous identical FIRs ended in acquittal or cancellation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs Secretary, Education Department, Quetta and 4 others2024 PLD Balochistan 92 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-06-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak alias Bagro and another vs The State and another2024 YLR 1713 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-11-30
  benefit of doubtidentification paradedishonest improvementcriminal appealmurder convictionprosecution evidencewitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder and robbery. The core legal questions concern the reliability of the identification parade, the consistency of prosecution witnesses' testimonies, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions, including dishonest improvements by eye-witnesses to align with medical evidence, failure of witnesses to identify the appellant in court, and procedural irregularities in the investigation and identification parade. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt, noting that the trial court ignored glaring infirmities and misread the evidence. The key principle laid down is that when prosecution witnesses make dishonest improvements to their statements, their testimony loses credibility. Furthermore, the court reiterated that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of an accused, the benefit of that doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a witness's dishonest improvement to align their statement with medical evidence render their entire testimony unreliable?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when prosecution witnesses fail to identify the accused during the trial?
  • Must the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Can a conviction be upheld if material pieces of evidence are not put to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaq vs Babal and 5 others2024 YLR 2069 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-14
  appeal against acquittalbenefit of the doubtdelay in FIRdouble presumption of innocencemurderdacoityreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court in a case arising out of an FIR registered under Sections 302, 396, and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the assessment of evidence in an appeal against acquittal, the effect of an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and the standard of proof required when minor or general roles are attributed to accused persons without specific overt acts. The Balochistan High Court held that the trial court rightly extended the benefit of the doubt to the respondents, noting unexplained delay in reporting the crime, failure to examine material witnesses, and lack of any specific overt act attributed to the surviving respondent. The court reiterated that an accused person who has earned an acquittal enjoys a double presumption of innocence, and interference is warranted only in cases of gross misreading of evidence or miscarriage of justice. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What are the principles for interfering with an acquittal judgment in criminal appeals?
  • What is the legal effect of an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR without a plausible explanation?
  • Does the mere presence of an accused without a specific overt act warrant conviction under criminal law?
  • When should the benefit of the doubt be extended to an accused person in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs Government of Balochistan, through Chief Secretary and 32024 PLC (C.S.) 297 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-01-12
  service mattercivil servantwrit jurisdictionjurisdictional bartransfer and postingservice tribunalmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a notification regarding the transfer and posting of the petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate a service-related grievance concerning the terms and conditions of a civil servant, or if such jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the Service Tribunal. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, dismissing it in limine. The ratio of the decision is that the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted in matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, as these fall within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal. The Court affirmed that Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, being a non-obstante provision, prevails over the writ jurisdiction under Article 199, thereby creating an absolute bar on the High Court from entertaining such service matters, regardless of allegations of mala fide or the availability of alternate remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition regarding the transfer and posting of a civil servant?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 prevail over the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in service matters?
  • Is a petition challenging the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant maintainable before the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasool vs S.H.O., P.S. City Jacobabad and 2 others2024 YLR 1252 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-06
  registration of FIREx-Officio Justice of Peacecriminal investigationSughran Bibi principleSection 22-A Cr.P.C.multiple versions of incident
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order by the Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which dismissed the applicant's request under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to register an FIR against police officials for allegedly usurping his property during an incident where a separate FIR was already pending against his driver. The core legal question was whether a separate FIR is mandatory for a new version of an existing incident. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State, the High Court held that the dismissal was correct. The court affirmed that when a criminal case exists, the Investigating Officer must investigate all angles and record subsequent versions of the incident under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rather than registering a separate FIR. The principle established is that the Investigating Officer is duty-bound to discover the truth by considering all versions of an incident within the same case, ensuring that investigations remain comprehensive without the need for multiple FIRs for a single occurrence.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory to register a separate FIR for a new version of an incident when a criminal case is already pending?
  • What is the duty of an Investigating Officer when multiple versions of the same incident are brought to their notice?
  • Can an application under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be dismissed if the applicant has alternative legal remedies?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs The Secretary Local Government Civil Secretariat, Quetta and 4 others2024 CLC 556 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Mehboob-ul-Hassan & another2024 LHC 1946 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Ltu-II, Karachi2024 PTD (Trib.) 733 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2020-11-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed & Others vs Ms. Khato & Others2024 SHC 1210 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahman and others vs Muhammad Farooq and others2024 LHC 660, 2024 PLJ Lahore 253, 2025 CLC 323 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Raheem Vistro vs The State2024 SHC 194 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-06
  last seen evidenceextra-judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencemurdersodomyanti-terrorismcriminal appealrecovery of dead body
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur, which convicted the appellant for the abduction, sodomy, and murder of an eight-year-old minor. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency and reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically the 'last seen' testimony and the appellant's extra-judicial confession leading to the discovery of the deceased's body. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstances linking the appellant to the crime. It affirmed that the appellant was the last person seen with the victim, and his subsequent confession, which led to the recovery of the body, was credible and corroborated by witnesses who were related to both the complainant and the appellant. The Court laid down the principle that 'last seen' evidence, when free from taint and establishing a reliable link between the offender and the victim within proximity of time and space, is sufficient for conviction. Furthermore, an extra-judicial confession leading to the discovery of incriminating evidence constitutes strong, admissible proof of guilt, justifying the dismissal of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of 'last seen' evidence alone if it forms a complete chain of circumstances?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession leading to the discovery of a dead body sufficient to establish guilt in a murder case?
  • Does the relationship between the complainant and the accused preclude the reliability of witness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Raheem Dayo vs The State and another2024 YLR 1157 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-23
  criminal negligencerailway accidentvicarious liabilitybenefit of doubtrule of consistencyadverse presumptionDiyatRailways Act 1890
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of an Assistant Station Master for a fatal train collision under the Railways Act, 1890 and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution established the appellant's criminal negligence and whether the conviction could be sustained given the acquittal of co-accused and the failure to examine material witnesses. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's specific duty or criminal negligence, noting that key witnesses, including the Station Master and technical experts, were not examined. Applying the rule of consistency, the Court set aside the conviction, observing that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Furthermore, the Court invoked the principle of vicarious liability, directing the Pakistan Railways to compensate the victims' legal heirs and injured passengers, emphasizing that the employer remains liable for damages caused by the negligence of its servants during the course of their duties, regardless of the individual employee's criminal acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine material witnesses in a criminal trial warrant an adverse presumption against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can an accused be convicted on the same evidence for which co-accused have been acquitted?
  • Is the Pakistan Railways department vicariously liable to compensate victims of a train accident even if the specific employee charged is acquitted of criminal negligence?
  • Does the failure to remand an accused to judicial custody after recording a confessional statement render the confession inadmissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qudoos son of Haji Abdul Razzaq vs Hafiz Israr Ahmed son of Haji2024 SCP 254, 2024 SCMR 1705 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-07-26
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationalibi evidencemala fidestentative assessmentjudicial discretioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the Balochistan High Court's order cancelling the petitioner's pre-arrest bail in a case involving Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in cancelling bail granted by the Sessions Judge, who had relied on alibi evidence including Call Data Records (CDR) and CCTV footage. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's cancellation was unjustified, noting that the petitioner had not abused the concession of bail and that the Sessions Court had conducted a proper tentative assessment of the material. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's apprehension of arrest due to mala fides was not baseless, particularly given the investigating officer's failure to verify the provided alibi evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Sessions Court's order confirming the pre-arrest bail. The judgment reaffirms that appellate courts should not interfere with the sound exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters absent evidence of misuse or clear legal error.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court cancel pre-arrest bail without evidence of misuse of the concession by the accused?
  • Is the failure of an investigating officer to verify alibi evidence provided by an accused a valid ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • When can an appellate court interfere with the discretion exercised by a Sessions Court in granting pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Khan vs Muhammad Miskeen and others2024 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 130 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-09-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Khan Jatoi vs Election Commission of Pakistan etc2024 LHC 172 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1502 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-05-09
  narcotic traffickingdeath sentencesafe custody of contrabandpossession and controlcriminal appealquantum of sentencefirst offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for transporting 574 kilograms of charas and 7 kilograms of opium in a truck. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to death. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence regarding the safe custody and transmission of the contraband, the applicability of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to narcotics cases, and the appropriateness of the death penalty. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution's evidence regarding the recovery and chain of custody to be reliable and unimpeachable. The court affirmed that the driver of a vehicle is in control and possession of its contents. Regarding sentencing, the court held that while the conviction was sound, the death penalty was excessive for a first-time offender, especially given recent legislative amendments. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal against conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the fine and extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is a person on the driving seat of a vehicle legally responsible for the narcotics transported therein?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment for a first-time offender in a narcotics case?
  • Are police officials considered competent witnesses in criminal trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Pathan vs Nabi Bux Pathan through LRs2024 SHC 108 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 MLD 1774 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer vs The state2024 SCP 143, 2024 SCMR 1146, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-20
  kidnapping for ransomidentification paradereasonable doubtadverse inferencerecoverysafe administration of justiceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a conviction under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, regarding the kidnapping for ransom of the complainant's son. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to life imprisonment, which was upheld by the Lahore High Court. Upon reappraisal of the evidence, the Supreme Court identified several fatal flaws in the prosecution's case, including an unexplained two-day delay in FIR registration, the absence of Call Data Records (CDR) despite allegations of phone communication, and the failure to produce bank records for the alleged ransom payment. The Court further noted that the identification parade was legally defective as the abductee failed to assign a specific role to the petitioner. Applying the principle of safe administration of justice, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the petitioner was acquitted.

  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nabi Buriro vs The State2024 MLD 934 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-16
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelayed FIRabductiontentative assessmentcriminal rivalry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by applicant Abdul Nabi, seeking pre-trial release in FIR No. 101 of 2023 registered at Police Station A-Section Thull, District Jacobabad, for offences punishable under Sections 452, 365-B, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 (referred to as TIP Act in judgment). The core legal questions involved whether the delay in FIR registration, previous enmity, discrepancies in the identification of the accused, and the absence of the victim's recovery from the accused constituted grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the unexplained delay, prior antagonism, lack of specific attribution connecting the applicant to the alias mentioned in the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and non-recovery from the accused collectively brought the case within the ambit of further inquiry. The Court laid down the principle that tentative assessment of material revealing delayed FIRs, previous rivalry, and ambiguous identification entitles an accused to the discretionary concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR makes out a case for further inquiry warranting post-arrest bail?
  • Does ambiguity regarding the identity or alias of an accused in the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. create a ground for bail?
  • Whether the non-recovery of an abducted person from the possession of the accused entitles them to the concession of bail under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid through Attorney Muhammad Azhar vs Anjum Akhtar2024 LHC 1676, 2024 CLC 1727 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu and Kashmir2024 PLJ AJ&K 123 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Azam vs The State2024 YLR 2602 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2024-03-18
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirykidnappingprohibitory clausetentative assessmentmalafide implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed before the Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arising out of case FIR No. 10/2024 registered at Police Station Danyore, Gilgit under section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not directly nominated in the FIR and was the father of the principal accused, was entitled to post-arrest bail when the case called for further inquiry. The Court held that since the petitioner was not nominated in the promptly lodged FIR, no specific role was attributed, and the complainant party appeared to have malafidely widened the net to involve family members, the case fell within the purview of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not directly nominated and tentative assessment shows lack of reasonable grounds connecting him to the crime, bail should be granted as a rule.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused not directly nominated in the FIR is entitled to post-arrest bail under the rule of further inquiry?
  • Does the inclusion of an offence within the prohibitory clause bar the grant of bail when the case falls under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when tentative assessment of the record reveals lack of incriminating evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through ,Secretary2023 PHC 259, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 58, 2024 YLR 982 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Talani vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 432, 2025 PLD Sindh 19 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed s/o Jalal-ud-Din, caste Mir r/o Halan Janubi District Haveli2024 SC AJK 58, 2025 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-09-24
  fair trialSection 540 Cr.PCSection 164 Cr.PCsummoning of witnessesprocedural irregularityinherent powers of High Courtcriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a revision petition against the dismissal of an application to summon a prosecution witness who recorded a confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The trial court had refused to summon the witness on the grounds that the confessional statement was not produced before the framing of the charge under Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir addressed whether procedural technicalities could override the necessity of examining a material witness. The Court held that the trial court erred by prioritizing procedural rigidity over the pursuit of truth. It emphasized that under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court possesses expansive powers to summon any witness essential for a just decision. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the failure to forward the confessional statement was a duty of the Magistrate, not the petitioner. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, directing the trial court to summon the witness to ensure a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court refuse to summon a witness whose testimony is essential for a just decision due to procedural delays in producing a confessional statement?
  • Does the failure of a Magistrate to forward a confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the trial court constitute a ground to deny the examination of the recording officer as a witness?
  • Does the High Court possess inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to correct procedural errors suo motu to prevent an abuse of the judicial process?
  • Is the trial court empowered under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon witnesses regardless of prior procedural lapses by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif and Two Others vs Imtiaz Buriro & 12 Others2024 SHC 272 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif and others vs The State2024 SHC 1068 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-30
  post-arrest bailnarcoticscharas recoveryvehicle ownershipbenefit of doubtControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicants seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, concerning the alleged recovery of a huge quantity of charas from a vehicle allegedly being escorted by the applicants. The core legal question is whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail where contraband was recovered from a co-accused's vehicle and documentary evidence regarding the ownership of said vehicle by the applicants appears doubtful at the bail stage. The Sindh High Court allowed the application, holding that discrepancies in the delivery letters concerning vehicle ownership created sufficient doubt in the prosecution's case to warrant the grant of bail, and that the applicants' further custody was not required as challan had been submitted. The key principle laid down is that patent discrepancies in documentary evidence linking an accused to the crime vehicle at the bail stage entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt for the purpose of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when contraband is recovered from a co-accused's vehicle rather than from the direct possession of the applicants?
  • Does a discrepancy in serial numbers of vehicle delivery letters create sufficient grounds for extending the benefit of doubt at the bail stage?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigation has concluded and their further custody is no longer required for the purpose of investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalique & another vs The State2024 SHC 564 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-27
  pre-arrest bailcross-casescounter-FIRsexpedited trialtentative observationbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two pre-arrest bail applications arising from counter-FIRs (No. 36 of 2024 and No. 54 of 2024) lodged at Halani Police Station regarding the same incident of injury. The core legal question addressed was whether the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicants in both cases should be confirmed, given the existence of two conflicting versions of the incident and the consent of the parties. The Court observed that at the bail stage, it is prima facie difficult to determine the aggressor in cases involving cross-versions. Consequently, the Court held that in light of the parties' consent and the nature of the cross-cases, the interim bail orders should be confirmed. The Court further directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within two months, emphasizing that any observations made were tentative and would not prejudice the merits of the trial. The key principle laid down is that where cross-cases exist and parties consent, confirming interim bail is appropriate to avoid unnecessary incarceration while ensuring an expedited trial process.

  Questions settled

  • Should interim pre-arrest bail be confirmed in cross-cases where the parties consent to such an order?
  • Can a court direct the trial court to conclude a trial within a specific timeframe when granting bail in cross-cases?
  • Is it appropriate for a court to determine the aggressor at the bail stage in cases involving two conflicting versions of an incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq and another vs Muhammad Ismail and others2024 YLR 2757 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-09-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalid Buriro vs The State & others2024 SHC 572 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-27
  illegal dispossessionland grabbingrevenue recordpossession disputecriminal revisioncivil proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Revision Application was filed against an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Sukkur, which dismissed a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, directing the applicant to approach a Civil Court. The core legal question concerned whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint regarding alleged illegal dispossession of land. The High Court, upon reviewing a report submitted by the Mukhtiarkar Revenue regarding ownership and possession of the subject property, observed that the factual position regarding the alleged illegal occupation remained disputed and required further verification. The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner and the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Sukkur must ascertain the factual position and verify the alleged illegal occupation by land grabbers. The Court directed these officials to submit a detailed report to facilitate further orders, including potential directions to the trial court to take possession of the land and regulate its affairs pending a final decision on the merits of the lis. The matter was adjourned for further proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court direct revenue and police officials to verify the factual position of land possession in an illegal dispossession complaint?
  • Is it appropriate for a trial court to dismiss an illegal dispossession complaint solely by directing the parties to approach a Civil Court when factual disputes regarding possession exist?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs The State2024 YLR 2635 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-27
  post-arrest bailnon-prohibitory clausehawala transactionForeign Exchange Regulations Actjudicial discretionstare decisisbail as rule
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused charged under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947 and the Customs Act, 1969, regarding alleged illegal foreign currency transactions via informal banking channels. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail for offences that, while non-bailable, fall within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court granted bail, holding that the prosecution failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances—such as flight risk, evidence tampering, or recidivism—to justify detention. The court determined the case required further inquiry and that the applicant's continued incarceration was unwarranted. The judgment reaffirms the established principle that for offences not falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. It emphasizes that subordinate courts are constitutionally bound by Supreme Court precedents regarding bail and must provide reasoned justifications if departing from this rule, ensuring that personal liberty is not infringed upon arbitrarily.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a rule or an exception?
  • Are trial courts and special tribunals constitutionally bound by the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the grant of bail?
  • What are the specific exceptional circumstances that justify the refusal of bail in cases falling within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Baloch vs Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Civil2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 149 · Balochistan Service Tribunal
  service appealtransfer and postingadministrator appointmentlocal governmentcivil servantrules of businessbalochistan service tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a civil servant holding BPS-19, filed a service appeal under Section 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974, challenging his transfer notification dated 27-03-2023 from the post of Administrator Metropolitan Corporation, Quetta to Additional Secretary Chief Minister Secretariat, Balochistan, Quetta. The core legal question revolved around the legality of frequent transfers without tenure completion and the proper legal procedure and authority for appointing an Administrator under the local government law and rules of business. The Balochistan Service Tribunal held that the appointment and subsequent transfer notifications relating to the post of Administrator Metropolitan Corporation, Quetta, did not follow the mandatory statutory procedures prescribed under the Balochistan Local Government Act, 2010 and the Balochistan Government Rules of Business, 2012, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned transfer notifications to that extent and directed the Government of Balochistan to properly appoint an Administrator in accordance with the law within fifteen days. The key principle laid down is that the appointment of an Administrator to a local council requires strict adherence to statutory provisions and provincial government approval processes rather than routine civil service transfer orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appointment of an Administrator for a local council can be made through routine civil service transfer notifications without following the statutory procedure under the Balochistan Local Government Act, 2010?
  • Does the power to appoint an Administrator under the Balochistan Local Government Act, 2010 require formal approval and process by the Provincial Government?
  • Can a civil servant challenge a frequent transfer order before the Balochistan Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar and another vs The State2024 YLR 2297 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-10-12
  narcotic substancesconscious possessionchemical analysissafe custodybenefit of doubtcriminal appealnarcotics recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of two appellants under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the possession of 40 kilograms of charas recovered from a vehicle. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution established the safe custody and transmission of the narcotics, whether the chemical analysis report was sufficient to prove the quantity of contraband, and whether a passenger in a vehicle can be convicted for narcotics possession without proof of conscious knowledge. The Court held that while the prosecution proved the recovery, it failed to prove the entire quantity was narcotics because the chemical analysis report did not confirm that samples were drawn from each individual packet. Consequently, the conviction of the driver was reduced to the quantity of one kilogram. Regarding the passenger, the Court held that mere presence in a vehicle is insufficient for conviction without evidence of conscious possession or knowledge of the hidden contraband. The Court affirmed the principle that separate samples must be secured from each packet for chemical analysis to establish the total quantity, and that passengers cannot be convicted for narcotics possession absent proof of conscious knowledge.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to draw separate samples from each packet of narcotics for chemical analysis limit the conviction to the quantity of a single packet?
  • Can a passenger be convicted of narcotics possession solely based on their presence in a vehicle where contraband is concealed?
  • Is a disclosure statement made after the recovery of narcotics admissible as evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar alias Jabi vs The State2024 YLR 1461 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-12
  benefit of doubtappreciation of evidencecriminal appealacquittalsole eye-witnessanti-terrorismreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, which convicted the appellant for the murder of a police constable and related offences, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given that the same evidence had resulted in the acquittal of co-accused persons and that the appellant raised a defence of prior police custody. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court observed that the sole eye-witness's testimony was unreliable, particularly as the witness could not explain his presence or actions during the incident. Furthermore, the court noted that the appellant's name was absent from the initial station diary entry, despite other details being recorded, and that the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence without state challenge undermined the prosecution's case. The court reaffirmed the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted on the same evidence that led to the acquittal of co-accused persons?
  • Does the absence of an accused's name in the initial station diary entry create reasonable doubt regarding their involvement?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a sole eye-witness whose account is inconsistent with the surrounding circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hayee Ex-Sst(G) vs The Accountant General Balochistan Sariab2024 PLC (C.S.) 393 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-06-20
  locus poenitentiaesalary recoveryvested rightsconstitutional petitiondepartmental mistakeservice lawgood faith
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the legal heirs of a deceased government servant challenging an order issued by the Accountant General Balochistan for the recovery of salary benefits amounting to Rs. 15,52,068/-. The core legal question was whether the department could recover salary payments made to an employee due to a departmental mistake after the employee's retirement, in the absence of any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation by the employee. The Court held that the recovery order was illegal, void, and of no legal effect. The ratio of the decision is that where an employee has received salary benefits in good faith based on departmental pay slips, a vested right is created. The Court applied the doctrine of locus poenitentiae, ruling that the state cannot retract steps already taken and acted upon due to its own error. Consequently, the department is estopped from recovering emoluments paid to an employee for services rendered, as the employee cannot be penalized for the department's administrative mistakes.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government recover salary payments made to a civil servant due to a departmental error after the servant has retired?
  • Does the doctrine of locus poenitentiae prevent the recovery of salary benefits paid to an employee where no fraud is alleged?
  • Is a government department estopped from recovering salary benefits paid to an employee based on its own mistake?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hayee & Abdullah @ Ghazali, Saleem Zaman vs The State, etc2024 SCP 379, 2025 SCMR 281, PLJ 2025 SC (Cr.C.) 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-21
  chance witnessidentification paradebenefit of doubtcriminal appealterrorismSection 342 CrPCocular evidenceFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the petitioners for murder and terrorism following a bomb blast at a police post. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of "chance" eye-witnesses and the validity of identification parades. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. The Court ruled that the eye-witnesses were unreliable chance witnesses who failed to justify their presence at the scene, and their testimony was contradicted by the complainant. Furthermore, the identification parades were procedurally flawed due to being conducted jointly without specific role attribution. The Court also emphasized that incriminating evidence, such as weapon recoveries, cannot be considered if not put to the accused during their Section 342 CrPC examination. Additionally, the FIR was found to be delayed and fabricated to show promptness. Consequently, the convictions were set aside, and the petitioners were acquitted, establishing that evidence must be scrutinized for inherent reliability regardless of the absence of witness enmity.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be relied upon without a convincing explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does the failure to put incriminating evidence to an accused during their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render that evidence inadmissible?
  • Is a joint identification parade of multiple accused valid when no specific role is attributed to them?
  • Does the absence of enmity between a witness and an accused automatically render the witness's testimony credible?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Arif javed and others2024 CLC 1402 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Tunio vs The Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1086 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and others vs The State and another2024 SCP 180, 2024 SCMR 1365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-20
  criminal breach of trustmens reasurety bondDefence Saving Certificatesanti-corruptionacquittalmisappropriation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and sentencing of the petitioners, a junior court clerk and a private individual, under Section 409 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners facilitated the unauthorized removal and subsequent encashment of two Defence Saving Certificates deposited as surety. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the actual beneficiary of the encashment, the surety, had already been acquitted by the High Court, and the accused in the underlying case had not jumped bail and was ultimately acquitted. Crucially, the Court found no evidence of mens rea or illegal consideration on the part of the court clerk, nor any evidence that the petitioners had dishonestly misappropriated or converted the certificates to their own use. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust were not established, allowed the appeals, and acquitted the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained in the absence of proof of mens rea or dishonest misappropriation?
  • Whether the acquittal of the primary beneficiary of an alleged financial misappropriation affects the sustainability of the conviction of co-accused charged with facilitation?
  • Is a charge of criminal breach of trust established if the deposited surety documents were returned to the surety and no financial loss was caused to the state or the court proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakeem, The State vs The State, Abdul Hakeem2024 LHC 2405, 2024 PCRLJ 1764, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1024 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-20
  circumstantial evidenceDNA evidencebenefit of doubtchain of custodymurder referenceforensic scienceCCTV evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically CCTV footage, DNA analysis, and the recovery of stolen items. The core legal question was whether this circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction in an unwitnessed crime. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances. The court found the CCTV footage inconclusive per the forensic report and noted significant procedural lapses in the DNA sampling, chain of custody, and transmission of evidence, rendering the forensic findings unreliable. Furthermore, the recoveries were deemed suspect as they were not mentioned in the initial FIR. Emphasizing that conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires an impeccable chain of incriminating facts, the court ruled that any break in this chain necessitates acquittal. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the chain of incriminating circumstances is broken?
  • What are the legal requirements for the admissibility and reliability of CCTV footage in criminal trials?
  • Does a failure to maintain a proper chain of custody for forensic samples render DNA evidence inadmissible?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if the prosecution fails to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt in an unwitnessed murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez Indher and others vs P.O Sindh & others2024 SHC 840 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-31
  deceased quotacivil servantsappointment, promotion and transferconstitutional petitionpublic employmentfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions filed by legal heirs of deceased civil servants of the Government of Sindh, seeking appointments under the quota reserved for deceased public servants. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of legal heirs to employment under the deceased quota, particularly regarding the applicability of time limitations, age restrictions, and various amendments to the relevant service rules. The Sindh High Court held that heirs whose breadwinners passed away before the introduction of the restrictive two-year limitation period are not barred by time, and that the State is under a constitutional obligation to protect the family of a deceased employee. The court disposed of the petitions with directions to the Chief Secretary of Sindh to scrutinize and decide the pending applications through a speaking order in light of applicable policies, rules, and Supreme Court precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Are the legal heirs of a civil servant who died before the introduction of the two-year limitation period barred from seeking appointment under the deceased quota?
  • Does the State have a constitutional obligation under the Constitution of Pakistan to protect the families of deceased civil servants through beneficial appointment policies?
  • How do the successive amendments to the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974 affect the rights of children of deceased or incapacitated civil servants regarding public employment?
  • Can the competent authority consider the cases of candidates who were underage at the time of their father's death but applied upon attaining majority?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez & others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1124 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hadi Chatta, etc vs The State2024 IHC 252, 2025 PCRLJ 622 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-31
  physical custodyremandanti-terrorismsupervisory jurisdictionliberty of the subjectjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged an order by the Special Court-I (Anti-Terrorism), Islamabad, which granted three days of physical custody to the police in connection with FIR No. 1161/2024. The core legal question was whether the Special Court properly exercised its discretion in granting physical custody, specifically regarding compliance with established judicial principles and the necessity of such custody. The Islamabad High Court held that the impugned order was legally untenable because the Special Court failed to apply its mind or adhere to the principles for granting physical custody established in previous case law and the High Court Rules and Orders. The Court emphasized that physical custody involves the liberty of a person and should not be granted lightly. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the mandatory requirement for the Special Court to remit physical custody orders to the Sessions Judge for supervisory review, serving as a necessary check mechanism. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order, reiterating that police authorities must provide specific, justifiable reasons for requesting physical custody.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order granting physical custody to the police legally valid if it fails to apply judicial mind or adhere to established principles?
  • Does the failure to remit a physical custody order to the Sessions Judge for supervisory review render the order defective?
  • Are police authorities required to provide specific justifications when requesting physical custody of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hadi alias Babul and 2 others vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1521 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-19
  post-arrest baildacoityidentification paradefurther inquirystatutory minimum sentencebail as punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from FIR No. 09 of 2022 registered under Sections 395 and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Levies Thana Khadkoocha, wherein the applicants sought post-arrest bail after being implicated in a dacoity case. The core legal questions involved whether the absence of an identification parade for unnamed accused persons, the lack of weapon recovery, and the applicability of the lesser statutory minimum sentences warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Balochistan High Court held that since the accused were not nominated in the FIR and no identification parade was conducted, and given that investigation was complete and no injuries were caused, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The Court admitted the applicants to post-arrest bail, laying down the principle that bail cannot be withheld as a punitive measure and that the lesser prescribed minimum sentence should be considered for bail assessment when evaluating statutory thresholds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to hold an identification parade for unnamed accused persons makes their complicity a matter of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the ground that the offense charged is heinous or carries a severe potential sentence?
  • Should the lesser minimum sentence provided for an offense be considered when deciding a post-arrest bail application?
  • Does the mere recovery of allegedly robbed property, in the absence of an identification parade or other corroborating evidence, establish prima facie guilt for robbery?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani and others vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 344, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1263 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-23
  police recruitmentcriminal antecedentscharacter verificationper incuriamcivil service appointmentmoral turpitudedisciplined force
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, having qualified for Police Constable positions, challenged the refusal of the Respondents to issue appointment orders due to their past involvement in criminal cases, despite subsequent acquittals or disposal of cases in 'C' class. The core legal question was whether such acquittals grant a vested right to appointment and whether Section 15 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 mandates employment. The Court held that acquittal does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment, particularly in a disciplined force like the police. It ruled that Section 15 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 cannot be read in isolation but must be interpreted alongside the proviso to Section 6(3), which requires satisfactory character and antecedents as a condition precedent for appointment. The Court affirmed that the appointing authority possesses the discretion to evaluate the nature of the criminal record and acquittal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, except for those involving 'C' class reports, declaring previous conflicting judgments per incuriam for failing to consider these statutory provisions and binding Supreme Court precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal in a criminal case automatically entitle a candidate to appointment in the police department?
  • Can Section 15 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 be read in isolation to mandate the appointment of a candidate with a criminal record?
  • Is the verification of character and antecedents a condition precedent for appointment to the police force?
  • Does the appointing authority have the discretion to reject a candidate for a government position based on their criminal history despite an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Kakar vs Honorable Balochistan High Court, through Registrar and others2024 PLC (C.S.) 1362 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-30
  ante-dated promotionservice appeallienjudicial officerretrospective promotionservice terminationsubordinate judiciary
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal concerns an appellant, a former judicial officer of the Balochistan High Court, seeking ante-dated promotion retrospectively. The appellant, having moved to the Islamabad High Court in 2011 without retaining a lien, claimed entitlement to promotion benefits granted to other judicial officers under a 2016 High Court of Balochistan judgment. The core legal question was whether a former employee, who severed ties with the parent department and joined another institution on a regular basis, remains eligible for retrospective service benefits or promotion from the parent department. The Court held that the appellant, having been relieved without lien and having joined the Islamabad High Court through a regular selection process, was no longer part of the Balochistan subordinate judiciary. Consequently, the Court ruled that the appellant could not claim retrospective promotion, particularly as his performance records were unavailable to the parent department for assessment. The judgment establishes that an employee who permanently leaves a department without retaining a lien forfeits claims to service benefits, including promotions, from that former employer.

  Questions settled

  • Can a former employee claim retrospective promotion from a parent department after permanently joining another institution without retaining a lien?
  • What are the legal prerequisites for the termination of a civil servant's lien in a parent department?
  • Is a judicial officer entitled to promotion benefits from a parent department if they were no longer part of that department's service at the time of the relevant judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Jagirani vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 348 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and another vs Babar Sultan Jadoon and 3 others2024 LHC 1561, 2024 CLC 1415 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The State2024 MLD 1321 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-19
  narcoticssafe custody of case propertychain of custodydelayed dispatch of sampledirectory rulestore-room registeracquittalbest evidence rule
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, by the Special Judge, CNSA, Mekran at Turbat, which resulted in a sentence of ten months rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal questions involved whether the delay in dispatching the narcotic sample to the chemical laboratory vitiated the trial and whether the prosecution successfully proved the safe custody and unbroken chain of transmission of the seized contraband. The Balochistan High Court held that the 72-hour time limit prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 is directory rather than mandatory, and minor delays explained by holidays do not invalidate the proceedings. However, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody of the seized property because the store-room register or a copy thereof was not formally produced in evidence, rendering oral testimony regarding safe custody inadmissible under Article 102 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the basis of a compromised chain of custody creating reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the time limit prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 for dispatching samples to the chemical laboratory is mandatory or directory?
  • Does the non-production of the store-room register or a copy thereof during trial render oral testimony regarding the safe custody of seized narcotics inadmissible under Article 102 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Whether failure to establish an unbroken chain of safe custody for seized contraband is sufficient to create reasonable doubt and warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Muhammad Iqbal2024 LHC 882 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Muhammad Ayub and Another2024 PLD Balochistan 18, 2024 CLD 207, 2024 PLJ Quetta 110 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Fattah vs Karachi Development Authority (KDA)2024 PLJ Karachi 112 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Basit vs The State, etc2024 LHC 4466, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 72, 2025 PCRLJ 589 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-14
  rapesole witness testimonyadmissibility of photographsdelayed FIRcriminal appealblackmailingQanun-e-Shahadatsexual assault
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for abduction and rape. The core legal question concerned whether the sole, uncorroborated testimony of the victim, coupled with circumstantial evidence including nude photographs, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, particularly given the delayed registration of the FIR and the absence of DNA evidence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction. The Court held that the testimony of a rape victim, if found credible and confidence-inspiring, is sufficient for conviction without requiring corroboration, as rape victims occupy a high evidentiary pedestal. The Court further established that photographs and digital media are admissible as both documents and physical evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Additionally, the Court ruled that delays in reporting sexual offences are excusable when motivated by the victim's fear, trauma, and concerns regarding social stigma and family honor. The judgment reaffirms that the quality, rather than the quantity, of evidence determines the proof of guilt in criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is the sole testimony of a rape victim sufficient to sustain a conviction without corroborative evidence?
  • Are photographs and digital media admissible as both documentary and physical evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does a delay in reporting a sexual offence to the police necessarily undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused's failure to explain incriminating evidence, such as nude photographs, during a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used against them?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bais vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary, Law, Parliamentary Affairs & Human Rights Department, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and 2 others2024 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 51 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal
  service appealrecovery of emolumentsreversionlocus poenitentiaedepartmental promotioncivil servantsalary benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenges orders directing the recovery of emoluments drawn by the appellants during their tenure on promoted posts after their promotions were set aside following a previous judgment of the Tribunal. The core legal question was whether a government department can recover salary and benefits paid to civil servants for a higher post when the promotion was later recalled or set aside through no fault of the employees. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal held that recovery of emoluments drawn against a higher post performed by the civil servant is unjustified, particularly when the employee had no role in any departmental error or misrepresentation. The Tribunal laid down the principle, relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence, that emoluments received for duties actually performed on a higher post cannot be recovered from a civil servant on the principle of locus poenitentiae and estoppel where the employee was not at fault.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the government can recover salary and benefits paid to a civil servant for a higher post when the promotion is subsequently set aside?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae bar the recovery of emoluments from a civil servant who performed duties on a higher post without any fault on their part?
  • Whether a departmental promotion committee's reconsideration of a promotion case warrants the recovery of past emoluments drawn by the employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aleem Uqaili & others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 674, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 83 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-21
  regularization of servicesad hoc appointmentSindh Public Service Commissionsuitability assessmentjudicial reviewCovid-19 appointmentspublic employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arose from the non-regularization of temporary doctors appointed during the Covid-19 pandemic, who challenged the implementation of a previous Division Bench order. That order had directed the Health Department to refer the petitioners to the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC) for suitability assessment via interviews, based on the principles in Dr. Naveeda Tufail v. Government of Punjab. The petitioners alleged that the SPSC failed to properly assess their suitability. The core legal question was whether the High Court could interfere with the SPSC’s assessment or re-evaluate candidates who were not recommended for appointment. The Court held that the previous directions were fully complied with when the SPSC conducted the interviews and released the results. Emphasizing that the Court cannot substitute itself for the SPSC to act as an interviewing panel or judge professional suitability, the Bench dismissed the petition. The judgment establishes that once a statutory body has conducted the mandated assessment process, the Court will not probe into the merits of the results or re-adjudge the candidates.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court substitute itself for the Public Service Commission to re-evaluate the suitability of candidates for public appointment?
  • Does a court have the authority to probe the merits of an assessment conducted by the Public Service Commission following a court-ordered interview process?
  • Is a candidate who fails the suitability assessment by the Public Service Commission entitled to retention in service?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdil Ali vs Additional District Judge, Gojra and others2024 SCP 294, 2024 SCMR 1862 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-02
  specific performancesale agreementbalance sale considerationexecution proceedingstimely paymentsupreme court of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal against concurrent orders of the lower forums which maintained the dismissal of execution proceedings filed by the petitioner. The core legal question concerns the effect of failing to deposit the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated by the appellate court in a suit for specific performance, and whether courts can extend such time or execute a non-existing decree. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner failed to deposit the balance amount within the mandated fifteen days, the suit stood dismissed, leaving no executable decree, and that courts are not legally empowered to extend the time for depositing balance consideration contrary to the agreement terms. The key principle laid down is that a buyer must make timely payment, demonstrate readiness and willingness, or deposit the amount in court upon refusal, and courts cannot rewrite private agreements by unilaterally extending payment deadlines.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal consequence of failing to deposit the balance sale consideration within the period stipulated by the appellate court in a specific performance suit?
  • Are courts legally empowered to extend the time for depositing the balance sale consideration contrary to the terms of the agreement?
  • Can a party initiate execution proceedings when the underlying suit stands dismissed due to non-compliance with a conditional decree?
  • What steps must a buyer demonstrate to prove readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration when the seller refuses to accept payment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas Khan vs The Director General, National Database and Registration2024 PLC (C.S.) 439 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-12
  departmental inquirydisciplinary proceedingsbiaswrit jurisdictionNADRAservice matterimpartiality
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by an Assistant Superintendent of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), challenging the composition of a departmental inquiry committee initiated against him following an altercation with a Deputy Director. The petitioner sought a direction from the Court to constitute a fresh inquiry committee, alleging bias because the committee members were subordinates of the respondent who initiated the proceedings and because he apprehended the involvement of the Deputy Director with whom he had the altercation. The Court examined the record and found that the Deputy Director in question was not a member of the inquiry committee. Furthermore, the Court held that departmental inquiries must necessarily be conducted by officials within the same department, and the mere fact that committee members are subordinates of the authority initiating the proceedings does not invalidate the inquiry. Finding no merit in the petitioner's apprehension of bias, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, establishing that departmental disciplinary inquiries are not vitiated solely because the inquiry officers are subordinates of the appointing authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can a departmental inquiry committee be challenged solely on the ground that its members are subordinates of the authority initiating the disciplinary proceedings?
  • Is a departmental inquiry vitiated if the official involved in the underlying altercation is not a member of the inquiry committee?
  • Does the Court have the authority to interfere in the composition of a departmental inquiry committee absent evidence of actual bias?
  Read full judgment →
• Abaid-Ur-Rehman, etc vs State, etcPLJ 2024 Cr.C. 329 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-29
  kidnapping for ransommurderreasonable doubtcriminal appealacquittalforensic evidenceocular evidenceFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions of the appellants for kidnapping for ransom, murder, and destruction of evidence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, finding the prosecution's case fundamentally flawed. The court held that material improvements and contradictions in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses rendered their evidence unreliable. Furthermore, the court identified significant inconsistencies in the timeline of the occurrence, the recovery of the deceased's body, and the handling of forensic evidence, which undermined the prosecution's narrative. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody of recovered items, rendering forensic reports inconclusive. It was further observed that the FIR appeared to be the product of deliberation rather than a spontaneous report. Reaffirming the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to meet the required burden of proof.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material improvements and contradictions in the statements of key prosecution witnesses?
  • Is the prosecution required to establish the safe custody of recovered evidence to rely upon forensic reports for conviction?
  • Does the failure to verify the initial place of abduction render the entire prosecution story unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Khan and others vs The State etc2024 LHC 2388, 2024 YLR 2272, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 996 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-25
  murderbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencedelayed FIRunnatural conduct of witnessescriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the ocular evidence and procedural conduct. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, setting aside the conviction and death sentence, and dismissing the complainant's appeals against the acquittal of co-accused and for enhancement of compensation. The Court laid down that delayed FIRs without justification, the unnatural conduct of eyewitnesses—specifically their failure to assist the victim—and material contradictions between medical and ocular evidence create reasonable doubt. It further established that corroborative evidence, such as forensic reports, cannot sustain a conviction when the substantive ocular testimony is disbelieved. Additionally, the Court reaffirmed that motive is a double-edged weapon and that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right when the prosecution's case is not free from doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of eyewitnesses to assist a victim in a life-threatening situation render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on corroborative forensic evidence when the primary ocular testimony is disbelieved?
  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Is a motive for murder a double-edged weapon that can equally support a defense of false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Hayat, The State etc. vs The State etc., Aamir Hayat2024 LHC 901, 2024 YLR 1466 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-12
  murder referencedeath sentenceeyewitness credibilitychance witnessmedical evidence conflictforensic reportbenefit of doubtabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for homicide under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested on ocular accounts from two alleged eyewitnesses, a recovery of a pistol, and a motive involving a volleyball dispute. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found a delay of over twelve hours in registering the FIR, which suggested deliberation. The court observed that the eyewitnesses were chance witnesses who failed to provide a plausible explanation for their presence at the crime scene. Furthermore, their testimonies conflicted with the medical evidence regarding the entry wounds, and the forensic report showed that the recovered pistol did not match the crime empties. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt. Applying the principle that even a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a chance witness's testimony, and how must courts scrutinize such evidence?
  • Does a material conflict between oral eyewitness accounts and medical evidence regarding firearm wounds undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of abscondence in the absence of other credible evidence?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to grant the benefit of doubt to an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Hayat vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1951 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-16
  murderdeath sentenceinterested witnessocular accountbenefit of doubtcriminal appealcorroborationmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on interested eye-witnesses and disputed recovery evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found that the eye-witnesses were interested and their testimony lacked necessary independent corroboration, while the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account regarding the number of injuries. Furthermore, the court rejected the motive as stale and found the recovery of the weapon suspicious given the delay. The court affirmed the principle that the testimony of interested witnesses requires careful scrutiny and independent corroboration to avoid implicating innocent persons. Additionally, it reiterated that medical evidence is merely corroborative and cannot identify an assailant. Concluding that the prosecution's case was riddled with doubts, the court acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of the doubt, and declined to confirm the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of an interested witness require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction?
  • Can medical evidence alone be used to identify an assailant in a criminal trial?
  • Is a single reasonable doubt sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused person?
  • Does a discrepancy between the number of injuries stated in the ocular account and the medical report undermine the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Ali vs The State2024 YLR 2014 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-04-08
  criminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencecorroborationacquittalsite map
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a five-year-old child. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given that the trial court acquitted a co-accused on the same set of evidence. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court reasoned that since the eye-witnesses were disbelieved regarding the co-accused, their testimony could not be relied upon against the appellant without independent corroboration, which was absent. Furthermore, the court found the site map unreliable as it lacked clear pointation. The key principle laid down is that when eye-witnesses are disbelieved against one accused, they cannot be relied upon against co-accused persons in the absence of independent corroboration. Additionally, the court reaffirmed that conviction cannot rest solely on corroborative evidence when direct evidence is disbelieved, and any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can eye-witness testimony be relied upon against a co-accused if the same witnesses were disbelieved regarding another co-accused on the same set of evidence?
  • Is it safe to base a conviction on corroborative evidence when the direct evidence has been disbelieved?
  • Does a site map prepared without clear evidence of the source of information constitute reliable evidence in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Ali S/O Muhammad Soomro vs The State2024 SHC 746 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-09
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycomplainant affidavitno objection bailrobberyPakistan Penal CodeCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of F.I.R. No. 145/2024 registered under Sections 394, 397, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Steel Town Karachi. The applicant sought bail primarily on the ground that the complainant had sworn an affidavit stating that the applicant was not the actual culprit and that the police had forced his nomination, expressing no objection to the grant of bail. The State opposed the application citing the gravity of the offense and the specific role assigned. The court held that in view of the complainant's statement and affidavit before the court, the matter fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established that where a complainant disowns the nomination or offers no objection based on police coercion, and the accused is neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal and no longer required for investigation, post-arrest bail should be granted as a tentative assessment of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the affidavit of a complainant stating no objection to bail warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted when the complainant alleges police forced the nomination of the accused?
  • Does the lack of previous convictions and completion of investigation favor the grant of post-arrest bail in non-bailable offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Afzal and another vs S. Akmal (deceased) through LRs and two2024 SCP 240, 2024 SCMR 1649, 2024 PLJ SC 702 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-17
  civil revisionconcurrent findingsfraud and misrepresentationoral giftburden of proofreappraisal of evidencepleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court whereby concurrent findings of two competent courts dismissing the respondents' suit for declaration, injunction, and cancellation of a memorandum of oral gift were set aside in revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The dispute concerned a residential property gifted orally in 1962 by the predecessor-in-interest to the appellants (who were minors at the time), followed by a registered memorandum of gift in 1974 and subsequent transfer of shares in a housing society. The respondents later challenged the memorandum alleging fraud and fabrication without pleading specific particulars. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court validly interfered with concurrent factual findings. Holding that general allegations of fraud without particulars are insufficient under Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and that the initial burden of proof was not discharged by the respondents, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction under section 115 by reappraising evidence and overturning reasoned concurrent findings without establishing material irregularity, misreading, or perversity. The appeal is allowed and the High Court judgment is set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether general allegations of fraud in a plaint without specific particulars satisfy the requirements of Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact of subordinate courts while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in the absence of material irregularity or misreading of evidence?
  • Where an oral gift is made in favour of minors, who bears the initial burden of proof when a subsequent suit is filed to challenge the registered memorandum of such gift?
  Read full judgment →
• A & R Associates vs Ahmed Ali Bugti2024 SHC 706 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-09Read full judgment →
• A & G Agro Industries Private Limited & Others vs Federation of Pakistan &2024 SHC 262 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• 1. Khadim Hussain Son Of Mohabat Khan and others vs The State2024 F.S.C 12, 2024 YLR 2247 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-06-13
  Harrabahbenefit of doubtretracted confessioncriminal appealchain of custodyrecovery evidencejudicial confessionunexplained delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for offenses under Section 17(4) of The Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Sections 412 and 202 of The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of retracted judicial confessions, the impact of unexplained delays in recording witness statements, and the validity of alleged recoveries of crime weapons and stolen property. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found the confessions involuntary and procedurally flawed, the recovery evidence unreliable due to broken chain of custody and lack of independent witnesses, and the witness statements suspect due to inordinate, unexplained delays. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, granting them the benefit of doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, rather than grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in recording witness statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, render the prosecution's case unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on retracted judicial confessions that fail to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of Sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the chain of custody for recovered crime weapons and evidence to ensure their admissibility and reliability?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• "The State , Muhammad Nasir @ Bhola vs Muhammad Nasir @ Bhola, The2023 LHC 2072, 2024 PCRLJ 829 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-03
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtchance witnessFIR delayocular evidenceacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant evidentiary discrepancies. The High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with fatal flaws, including an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, contradictory testimonies regarding the reporting of the incident, and the unreliable nature of the alleged eyewitnesses, who were deemed chance witnesses without a credible explanation for their presence. Furthermore, the court noted critical irregularities in the inquest report and injury statements, specifically the overwriting of the FIR number, and found the recovery of the alleged murder weapon to be highly suspicious. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that in criminal jurisprudence, any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right. The principle laid down is that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, and material contradictions in evidence necessitate acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Can the testimony of chance witnesses be relied upon if they fail to provide a credible explanation for their presence at the scene of the crime?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon considered reliable when there are material contradictions in the testimony regarding the arrest and custody of the weapon?
  • Does the principle of 'double-edged sword' apply to motive in criminal cases where enmity exists between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• .D.O./A.M., Hasht Nagri Sub-Division, PESCO, Peshawar and others vs2023 PLD Supreme Court 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-06
  civil procedurecorporate litigationpleadingsprocedural irregularitycurable defectsinstitution of suitssigning and verification
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns the procedural requirements for instituting and defending suits by corporations under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court addressed whether the authority to sign and verify pleadings differs from the authority to institute or defend a suit, whether procedural rules for pleadings apply to appeals and revisions, and whether defects in such authority are curable. The Court held that signing/verifying a pleading (governed by Order VI, Rules 14-15 and Order XXIX, Rule 1) is distinct from the act of presenting/instituting a suit (governed by Order III, Rule 1, Order IV, Rule 1, and Order VIII, Rule 1). Furthermore, the Court clarified that rules regarding signing and verifying pleadings do not apply to memorandums of appeal or revision petitions. Emphasizing that procedural law should facilitate justice rather than thwart it, the Court ruled that any defect in the authority of a person to sign, verify, or present pleadings, appeals, or revisions is a curable irregularity that does not affect the merits or jurisdiction of the court.

  Questions settled

  • Is there a legal distinction between the authority to sign and verify a pleading and the authority to institute or defend a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Do the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the signing and verification of pleadings apply to memorandums of appeal and revision petitions?
  • Can a defect in the authority of a person to sign, verify, or present a pleading, appeal, or revision petition be cured at a later stage of the proceedings?
  • Does the misjoinder of parties constitute a defect that can be cured under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• : Marie Stopes Society through Authorized Officer vs Federation Of Pakistan2023 PLJ Karachi 6 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zulfiqar and another vs The State2023 YLR 1002 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-30
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtimpeaching credit of witnessdishonest improvementsextortionterrorismforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for offences under sections 386 and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed due to significant delays in reporting the crime, the delayed production of the alleged threatening letter, and substantial, dishonest improvements made by the complainant in his testimony to implicate the appellants. Furthermore, the forensic evidence failed to link the appellants to the incriminating document. The court held that when a witness makes dishonest improvements to their statement to strengthen the prosecution's case, their testimony loses credibility and must be discarded. Reaffirming the principle that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to an accused as a matter of right rather than grace, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal consequence when a prosecution witness makes dishonest improvements to their statement to strengthen the case?
  • Is it necessary to have multiple circumstances to grant the benefit of doubt to an accused?
  • Does the delayed production of incriminating evidence by the prosecution create reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar alias Bhutta vs The State and another2023 YLR 1136 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-27
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayprolonged incarcerationthird provisofourth provisodelay in trialproclamation
  Summary & questions settled

  The Lahore High Court addressed a sixth post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by an accused facing trial under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds of hardship due to continuous detention exceeding four and a half years and statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial. The Court considered whether non-compliance with prior judicial directions to expeditiously conclude a trial automatically entitles an accused to bail, and whether the petitioner qualified for bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. The High Court held that failure to observe speed-of-trial directions is not an absolute right to bail but constitutes a fresh ground for judicial evaluation. Further, the Court observed that the delay in the trial was predominantly caused by the complainant and prosecution witnesses, who absconded to avoid service. Finding no deliberate delay attributable to the petitioner and no past convictions, the Court granted post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does non-compliance with court directions for the speedy conclusion of a trial automatically entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right?
  • Under what circumstances can an accused claim post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can delay caused by the non-appearance and abscondance of prosecution witnesses be attributed to the accused to deny statutory bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs The State2023 SHC 842 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-02
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clauseGutka and Manipuri Acttentative assessmentcriminal trialbail discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Zulfiqar Ali, who is facing trial for an offence under Section 8 of the Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storage, Sale and Use of Gutka and Manipuri Act, 2019. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the offence and the statutory punishment prescribed. The Court held that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as the maximum punishment is three years. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court affirmed that bail is a right and refusal is an exception, particularly when the prosecution fails to demonstrate that the accused is likely to abscond, tamper with evidence, or repeat the offence. The Court emphasized that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage and that the prosecution failed to establish grounds for denying relief. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, noting that the observations made were tentative and would not prejudice the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence punishable by a maximum of three years imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What are the specific grounds required to justify the denial of bail to an accused?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible when deciding a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and others2023 PLD Lahore 512 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-26Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 70 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-04Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali and others vs Capital Development Authority and others2023 PLC 46 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2020-04-14
  service disputepromotionup-gradationseniorityqualification criteriaNational Industrial Relations Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a service dispute before the National Industrial Relations Commission regarding the up-gradation and promotion of junior employees over senior security guards in the Capital Development Authority. The core legal question addressed is whether the employer's decision to promote junior employees based on newly laid down criteria and qualifications, and the creation of promotional posts, was lawful and immune from interference. The National Industrial Relations Commission held that the authority was competent to create posts and prescribe promotion criteria such as educational qualifications and length of service, and since the petitioners lacked the requisite Matric qualification, they were ineligible for promotion. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing that courts and tribunals will not interfere with executive policy-making and promotion criteria set by competent authorities absent mala fides.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employer is competent to prescribe new educational and service criteria for promotion to a newly created post?
  • Can a promotion based on a validly notified criteria by the competent authority be challenged by senior employees lacking the required qualification?
  • Does a service tribunal or court interfere in the policy-making domain of the executive regarding departmental promotions in the absence of mala fides?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmed vs Muhammad Nadeem and Others2023 SHC 433, 2024 PLJ Karachi 10, 2024 MLD 1237 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-12Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutta, Syed Tariq Badar, Naeem ul Hassan, Advocate v_c62821782023 SCP 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-22Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Additional SHO, Police Station Jamrud at Jamrud District Khyber2023 PCRLJ 608 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-15
  constitutional petitionJustice of Peaceregistration of FIRofficial dutiesfake currencyquashing of order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by law enforcement personnel challenging an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Khyber acting as a Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the registration of an FIR was ordered against the petitioners. The core legal question involved was whether the Justice of Peace was justified in ordering the registration of a criminal case against law enforcement officials who seized fake foreign currency from an individual in the discharge of their official duties at a border check post. The Peshawar High Court held that since the petitioners acted in the line of duty without any apparent mala fide, personal vendetta, or ill-will, and the seized currency was found to be fake upon examination, the order passed by the Justice of Peace was illegal and not based on proper appraisal of law. The court laid down the principle that law enforcement officials acting bona fide in the national interest during the discharge of official duties cannot be subjected to criminal proceedings through an order under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without valid grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Justice of Peace is justified in ordering the registration of an FIR against law enforcement personnel acting in the discharge of their official duties?
  • Can police officials be subjected to criminal proceedings under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of mala fide or personal vendetta?
  • Whether the seizure of fake currency by law enforcement agencies at a border check post constitutes a cognizable offence warranting criminal investigation against the officials?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair and 16 others vs Senior Superintendent Police, Jhelum Valley and others2023 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 89 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-02-10Read full judgment →
• Zubair Ali vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2023 PLD Peshawar 35 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-24Read full judgment →
• Zubair Ahmed vs The State2023 PLD Sindh 151 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-17
  Qatl-e-amdde novo trialfair trialdue processprocedural irregularitydeath sentence confirmationrecording of evidenceremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and reference for confirmation of a death sentence arose from a conviction for Qatl-e-amd and abduction. Following an initial remand, the trial court framed a fresh charge but adopted evidence recorded during the previous trial round, a procedure consented to by both the prosecution and the defense. The core legal question was whether such adoption of evidence satisfies the requirements of a fair trial and procedural law. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the case for a de novo trial. The Court held that adopting evidence from a prior proceeding after framing a fresh charge violates the mandatory requirements of Section 231 and Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which necessitate that evidence be recorded in the presence of the accused. Such procedural failure constitutes an incurable illegality that prejudices the accused's right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and cannot be cured under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court adopt evidence recorded in a previous trial round after framing a fresh charge upon remand?
  • Does the adoption of evidence in the absence of the accused violate the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the failure to record evidence in the presence of the accused an incurable illegality under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the adoption of previously recorded evidence after a fresh charge violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →