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.

• Syed Ali Nawaz Shah and 2 others vs The State2023 YLR 1887 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-13
  accountability appealcorruption and corrupt practicesadmissibility of evidenceprocedural illegalityland acquisitionburden of proofcriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Accountability Appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question was whether the trial court could rely on evidence from a prior proceeding without re-producing or re-exhibiting documents in the presence of the accused, and whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the charges. The High Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The court held that the trial court committed a fundamental illegality by relying on evidence from an earlier trial without complying with Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The principle established is that evidence from previous proceedings cannot be imported into a new trial simply by reference; documents must be formally produced and exhibited in the presence of the accused. Additionally, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged forgery of land acquisition forms, as the documents were never produced or verified by a handwriting expert, rendering the conviction unsustainable due to lack of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can evidence recorded in a previous judicial proceeding be used in a subsequent trial without re-producing the documents in the presence of the accused?
  • Does the failure to produce and exhibit documents in the presence of the accused constitute a curable irregularity or a fundamental illegality?
  • Is a conviction for corruption sustainable when the prosecution fails to produce the alleged forged documents or obtain a handwriting expert's report?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Kazmi vs Government of Punjab and others2023 LHC 4856, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 985 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-26
  daily wagesregularizationmaster and servantconstitutional petitionlachesvested rightservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the dismissal of the petitioner’s application for reinstatement and regularization of his services as a daily-wage employee. The core legal questions concerned whether a daily-wage employee possesses a vested right to regularization, whether the court can interfere in administrative employment policies, and whether the petition was barred by laches. The Court held that the petition is meritless and dismissed it. The ratio decidendi establishes that daily-wage and contract employees have no vested right to regularization, as their employment is governed by the principle of master and servant, which generally precludes the maintainability of a constitutional petition. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that long-standing service does not automatically confer a right to permanent status, and judicial interference in administrative policy decisions is restricted to instances of caprice or arbitrariness. Finally, the Court held that the petitioner’s inordinate delay in challenging the impugned orders rendered the petition liable to dismissal under the doctrine of laches, as the law aids the vigilant rather than the indolent.

  Questions settled

  • Does a daily-wage employee have a vested right to claim regularization of service?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable in matters involving the master-servant relationship?
  • Can a court interfere with an administrative policy decision regarding employment criteria?
  • Does the doctrine of laches apply to a constitutional petition filed after an inordinate delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Javaid Hamdani vs The Federation of Pakistan through its Cabinet2023 LHC 3681 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Ali Hassan Naqvi vs Senior Superintendent of Police, etc.2023 LHC 4701 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Asim Jaffari and 4 others vs Qamar Abbas and 6 others2023 CLC 895 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Akhtar vs Syed Murtaza and another2023 YLR 658 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-15
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationmurderous assaultanticipatory bailjudicial discretioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent, who was accused of an offence under Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving a firearm injury. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in granting pre-arrest bail. The High Court held that the trial court erred by failing to adhere to the established parameters for granting pre-arrest bail, which is an extraordinary relief requiring proof of mala fide or abuse of process, rather than a substitute for post-arrest bail. The Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is a judicial protection for the innocent against sinister motives, not a routine remedy. Furthermore, the Court clarified that for offences involving murderous assault, the distinction between vital and non-vital body parts is irrelevant, as the act of firing manifests the requisite intention. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and recalled the bail, establishing that pre-arrest bail must be exercised with extreme caution and cannot be granted based on tentative assessments that ignore the necessity of the investigative process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the distinction between vital and non-vital parts of the body affect the determination of intent in a charge under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is pre-arrest bail a substitute for post-arrest bail in ordinary criminal cases?
  • What is the standard of proof required to justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can bail granted by a trial court be cancelled if the court failed to apply the correct legal parameters for pre-arrest relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Akbar vs The State2023 YLR 901 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-09
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtmurder referencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessioncriminal appealcapital punishmentsupplementary statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal appeal against a conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving a murder reference. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony. The Lahore High Court acquitted the appellant, setting aside the conviction and death sentence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete, continuous, and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. The judgment reaffirms that circumstantial evidence is a weak form of proof requiring all links to firmly connect the accused to the crime; any missing link necessitates acquittal. Furthermore, it emphasizes that supplementary statements nominating an accused are viewed with suspicion as afterthoughts, and that failure to prove an alleged motive significantly undermines the prosecution's case. Finally, the court reiterated that medical evidence cannot substitute for substantive evidence connecting an accused to an offense, and that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is incomplete?
  • Does the failure to prove an alleged motive in a murder case entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Is a supplementary statement nominating an accused after the registration of an FIR considered reliable evidence?
  • Can medical evidence alone connect an accused to the commission of a crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Alam vs The State2023 YLR 1470 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-14
  Anti-Terrorism Actpolice encounterterrorismcriminal appealsentence reductionballistic reportrecovery of weapons
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for an armed encounter with a police party. The core legal question was whether the incident, involving firing at police in an unpopulated area at night, satisfied the statutory requirements to constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish that the incident created terror, panic, or a sense of insecurity among the general public, as the location was unpopulated and the incident occurred at odd hours. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, while maintaining the conviction under Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and modifying the sentence under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The court affirmed the principle that for an act to fall within the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it must be shown to have a tendency to create fear, panic, or insecurity in the minds of the general public, rather than being a mere criminal act.

  Questions settled

  • Does an armed encounter with police in an unpopulated area at night automatically constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What are the mandatory ingredients required to attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 regarding the creation of public terror?
  • Can a conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the incident caused panic or insecurity among the general public?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Aijaz Ali Shah Qadri vs The State2023 YLR 780 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-18
  criminal appealidentification paradebenefit of doubtanti-terrorismeye-witness reliabilityfalse implicationmurderappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentences imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court for murder, attempted murder, and terrorism-related offenses arising from a 2006 police encounter. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's identity and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on delayed identification proceedings and the absence of physical evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's identity, noting that the identification parade occurred seven years post-incident without the witnesses having provided a prior description of the assailants. Furthermore, the court found the eye-witness testimony unreliable due to the significant time lapse and the lack of corroborating evidence. Emphasizing that the benefit of doubt is a right rather than a concession, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reinforces the principle that identification of unknown assailants requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards, including timely identification parades and the provision of descriptive features by witnesses to avoid misidentification.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on an identification parade conducted years after the incident without prior description of the accused?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a legal right for an accused in criminal proceedings?
  • Does an in-court identification of an unknown assailant by a witness, years after the crime, constitute reliable evidence?
  • Is a confession made while in police custody admissible as evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Adnan Zafar vs The State2023 YLR 2660 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-29
  pre-arrest bailbail confirmationtentative assessmentfurther inquirymisuse of bailcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal bail application filed by the applicant seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 420, 468, 406, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who had been granted interim pre-arrest bail, was entitled to confirmation of that bail given the prosecution's allegations and the absence of evidence regarding misuse of liberty. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained one-year delay, the prosecution lacked the original agreement allegedly signed by the applicant, and the applicant had denied the execution of any such document. The Court held that the case required further inquiry to be determined at trial and noted that the applicant had not misused the concession of bail. Relying on established principles for bail cancellation, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of evidence is permitted and deeper appreciation is not required. The application was disposed of with directions to the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • What are the established principles for the cancellation or recalling of bail?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permitted at the bail stage?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdur Rashid through legal representatives and others vs Rana2023 YLR 309 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Manan and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1816 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-25
  narcotic smugglingsafe custody of contrabandchemical examiner reportcomplainant as investigating officerchain of custodyControl of Narcotic Substances Actcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge for Control of Narcotic Substances, Hyderabad, for the possession of 800 kilograms of Charas and 120 kilograms of Opium. The appellants, arrested in a truck, contested the conviction on grounds including: the chemical report's non-compliance with prescribed protocols; the failure to examine the Malkhana Muharrar to prove safe custody; the absence of private witnesses; and the fact that the complainant also acted as the investigating officer. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent testimony and documentary evidence, including Roznamcha entries establishing the chain of custody. The Court affirmed that the chemical report met legal standards, that the safe custody of contraband was established by documentary evidence, and that the exclusion of section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 rendered the lack of private witnesses immaterial. Furthermore, the Court held that a complainant may investigate a case absent proof of prejudice or specific enmity, which was not established here.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 exclude the requirement of associating private witnesses under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a police officer legally prohibited from investigating a case in which they are the complainant?
  • Can the safe custody of contraband be established through documentary evidence in the absence of the Malkhana Muharrar's testimony?
  • Does a minor discrepancy in the evidence of a raiding party necessarily invalidate a conviction for narcotics possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Ghaffor and others vs Commissioner National Industrial2023 IHC 208 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-10
  limitation periodgrievance noticeindustrial relationslachesconstitutional petitionregularization
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a writ petition to assail an order of the Full Bench, National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.), which had set aside a Member's order directing the regularization of the petitioners' services from an earlier effective date and the grant of back benefits. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners' grievance notices and subsequent grievance petitions before the N.I.R.C. were filed within the mandatory limitation periods prescribed by the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The court held that the cause of action arose upon the issuance of the petitioners' appointment letters, and since the grievance notices and petitions were filed well beyond the statutory limitation periods of ninety and sixty days respectively, the N.I.R.C. Full Bench rightly dismissed the petitions. Additionally, the court found the constitutional petition barred by laches due to a delay exceeding seven months. The key principle laid down is that strict adherence to the limitation periods for serving grievance notices and filing grievance petitions under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 is mandatory for maintaining a labor claim, and writ petitions filed beyond a reasonable time of ninety days are liable to dismissal on the grounds of laches.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a grievance petition before the N.I.R.C. is maintainable without the prior service of a grievance notice on the employer within the limitation period provided in Section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • What is the limitation period for filing a grievance petition before the N.I.R.C. under the proviso to Section 33(4) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 filed after a delay of more than seven months can be dismissed on the grounds of laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Abbas Raza vs Federation of Pakistan and others, Sui Southern Gas2023 SHC 184 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-17
  superannuationdisciplinary proceedingsabatement of proceedingspensionary benefitswrongful dismissalleave preparatory to retirementmaster and servantinjunction
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a former employee of Sui Southern Gas Company (SSGC), filed an application seeking the suspension of his dismissal order and the release of retirement benefits. The core legal question concerns whether disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee can continue after the employee has reached the age of superannuation, and whether the dismissal order issued on the date of retirement was valid given the pending leave and disciplinary status. The Court suspended the dismissal order, finding it prima facie malicious and contrary to the principle that disciplinary proceedings abate upon superannuation. The Court ordered the defendants to deposit the plaintiff's pensionary benefits with the Nazir of the Court. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary proceedings against an employee must be completed before the date of retirement; otherwise, they abate upon superannuation, entitling the employee to full pensionary benefits. Furthermore, an employer cannot arbitrarily dismiss an employee on the date of retirement to deprive them of earned benefits if the employee was entitled to leave preparatory to retirement.

  Questions settled

  • Do disciplinary proceedings against an employee abate upon the employee reaching the age of superannuation if not completed?
  • Can an employer dismiss an employee on the date of retirement to deprive them of pensionary benefits?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of a company governed by the Companies Act 2017 in the absence of statutory rules?
  • Is an injunction against the breach of a contract of employment maintainable when the contract cannot be specifically enforced?
  Read full judgment →
• Suriya Nafees vs Muhammad Ramzan Shahid etc2023 PLJ Lahore 76 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-18Read full judgment →
• Suriya Nafees vs Muhammad Ramzan Shahid and 2 others2023 CLC 301 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-18Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court Bar Association, through its Vice-President, Islamabad and others vs Pakistan Bar Council, through its Secretary, Islamabad and another2023 SCP 135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-09
  Supreme Court Bar AssociationPakistan Bar Councilconstitutional petitionamicable settlementde-seatingshow cause noticebar councilsoriginal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was brought under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by the Supreme Court Bar Association and others to challenge show cause notices and subsequent de-seating notifications issued by the Pakistan Bar Council against certain office-bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association. During the preliminary hearing and subsequent proceedings, the representatives of both eminent bar bodies, with the mediation of senior members of the legal fraternity and the Attorney General for Pakistan, engaged in amicable discussions and arrived at a consensual settlement. The parties agreed to withdraw all pending show cause notices, de-seating notifications, suspension resolutions, departmental letters, and related civil suits filed in the High Court, thereby resolving their disputes. The Supreme Court disposed of the constitutional petition in terms of the mutually agreed compromise, commending the leadership of both associations for their prudent resolution and emphasizing the maintenance of cordial relations within the legal fraternity in accordance with the applicable rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution is maintainable against show cause notices and de-seating actions issued by the Pakistan Bar Council?
  • Can disputes between the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Pakistan Bar Council be resolved through a consensual out-of-court settlement adopted by the Court?
  • Does the de-seating of bar association office-bearers without providing an opportunity of hearing violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court Bar Association through Vice-President, Islamabad and others vs Pakistan Bar Council through Secretary, Islamabad and another2023 SCMR 1123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-09
  constitutional petitionSupreme Court Bar AssociationPakistan Bar Councilamicable settlementbar councils rulesshow cause noticede-seatingjurisdiction under Article 184(3)
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and others to challenge show cause notices and subsequent de-seating notifications issued by the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) against certain office bearers of the SCBA. During the preliminary hearing, the representatives of both the SCBA and the PBC, along with the Attorney General for Pakistan, engaged in discussions and successfully reached an amicable, consensual settlement to resolve all ongoing disputes between the two premier legal bodies. The terms of the settlement included the withdrawal of the impugned show cause notices and de-seating notifications by the PBC, the withdrawal of various civil suits and resolutions by the SCBA, the cancellation of certain meeting minutes, and the restoration of suspended memberships and bank account operations. The Supreme Court disposed of the constitutional petition in terms of this mutual compromise, recording appreciation for the efforts of the leadership of both bar associations in amicably settling their differences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution can be disposed of on the basis of a consensual settlement between the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Pakistan Bar Council?
  • Can show cause notices and de-seating notifications issued against bar association office bearers be withdrawn pursuant to an amicable compromise between the disputing bodies?
  • What is the effect of a mutual agreement between representative bodies of lawyers on pending civil suits and resolutions regarding membership suspensions?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan, through its Secretary, Islamabad and others vs The Federation of Pakistan and others2023 SCP 331 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-02
  general electionsdelimitationelection programmeElection Commission of Pakistanappointment of election date
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional petition concerning the fixation of a date for general elections in Pakistan. The core legal question addressed by the Court was the determination and finalization of a timeline for holding general elections following the completion of the delimitation process by the Election Commission of Pakistan. The Court held that upon the conclusion of the delimitation process and subsequent announcement of the election programme in accordance with the law, the Election Commission must meet with the President of Pakistan to appoint the specific date for the general elections. The key principle laid down is that the electoral timeline must be adhered to in consultation with the relevant constitutional authorities to ensure general elections are held expeditiously while allowing adequate time for political parties to conduct their campaigns.

  Questions settled

  • What is the statutory timeframe governing the announcement of the election programme under the Elections Act, 2017?
  • Who is responsible for appointing the date for holding general elections after the completion of the delimitation process?
  • When must the Election Commission meet with the President of Pakistan to settle the date for general elections?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan through its Secretary, Isl_de33f3ed2023 SCP 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-10-23
  general electionsdelimitation of constituenciesCouncil of Common Interestcensus approvalconstitutional interpretationelection scheduleArticle 254
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple constitution petitions challenging the delay in holding general elections following the approval of the 7th Population and Housing Census, 2023, and the subsequent delimitation process. The petitioners questioned the validity of the census approval by the Council of Common Interest and the resulting inability to hold elections within the ninety-day constitutional period following the dissolution of assemblies. The Court addressed the procedural hurdles, including the immunity of the President under Article 248 and the requirement for a larger bench under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, for constitutional interpretation. Upon the petitioners restricting their prayers solely to the holding of general elections, the Court determined that a three-member bench could proceed. The Court noted the unanimous admission by counsel that elections could not be held within the ninety-day limit and acknowledged the application of Article 254 regarding the validity of acts performed outside prescribed periods. Consequently, the Court issued notices to the Election Commission of Pakistan and the Federation of Pakistan to ascertain the election schedule, adjourning the matter for further hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to perform a constitutional act within a prescribed period render the act invalid under Article 254 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a petition seeking constitutional interpretation require a larger bench under Section 4 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023?
  • Can the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan be held liable for failing to announce an election date given the immunity provided by Article 248 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan through its Secretary, Isl_cd88e4232023 SCP 337, 2023 SCP 331, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-03
  general electionsdissolution of assemblieselection datedelimitation of constituenciescensusconstitutional jurisdictionElection Commission of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutions petitions and civil miscellaneous appeals were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking the announcement of a date for general elections following the dissolution of the National Assembly and provincial assemblies in August 2023. The core legal questions involved the constitutional obligation to hold general elections within ninety days of dissolution under Article 224(2) of the Constitution, and the respective domains of the President of Pakistan and the Election Commission of Pakistan in fixing an election date amidst delays caused by the conduct of the 7th Population and Housing Census and subsequent delimitation of constituencies. The Court held that while general elections were delayed beyond the stipulated ninety-day period due to census and delimitation processes, the matter was successfully resolved when the President and the Election Commission of Pakistan agreed during court-facilitated proceedings to appoint 8 February 2024 as the poll date. The key principle laid down is that constitutional officeholders must strictly adhere to their respective domains and fulfill their constitutional duties as a sacred trust, and that obedience to the Constitution and law is mandatory rather than optional.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the delay in holding general elections beyond the ninety-day period due to census and delimitation renders the election process invalid under the Constitution?
  • How is the date for general elections to the National Assembly and provincial assemblies to be appointed when an impasse occurs between the President and the Election Commission of Pakistan?
  • Can the Supreme Court encroach upon the constitutional domain of the President or the Election Commission of Pakistan in fixing an election date?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan through its Secretary, Islamabad and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Cabinet Division, Islamabad and others2023 SCP 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-23Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court Bar Association (Scbap) & Another vs Pakistan Bar Council &2023 SHC 162 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Jamil Ahmad vs Muhammad Salam and others2023 PSC 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-06
  Katchi Abadielimitation periodleasehold rightsspecific reliefmaintainability of suitunauthorized possessionpublic policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a dispute over the lease of a plot of land in a Katchi Abadie, where the appellant challenged a lease granted to the respondent. The core legal questions were whether the appellant's suit, filed in 1995 regarding a 1985 lease, was time-barred, and whether the appellant could claim ownership rights over land not in his possession. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that the suit was clearly time-barred as the appellant failed to justify the delay in filing. Furthermore, the Court determined the suit was not maintainable because the appellant lacked the requisite legal character under the law. The Court established the principle that regularization of Katchi Abadies is intended to benefit the landless, not to facilitate personal enrichment or exploitation by individuals claiming rights over land they neither own nor possess. Consequently, the appellant could not claim leasehold rights based on a purported tenancy for land situated in a declared Katchi Abadie, as such claims are contrary to public policy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for declaration and cancellation of a lease filed ten years after the cause of action is time-barred?
  • Can a person claim ownership rights under the regularization of Katchi Abadies for land that is not in their possession?
  • Does a person have the legal character under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 to claim ownership of land they do not possess?
  Read full judgment →
• Suo Motu Regarding Holding of General Elections to the Provincial Assemblies of Punjab and Khyber vs Not2023 SCP 87 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  suo motu jurisdictionjudicial federalismoriginal jurisdictionres judicatajudicial restraintconstitutional interpretationprovincial autonomyArticle 184(3)
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns suo motu proceedings and connected constitutional petitions initiated under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan regarding the appointment of a date for general elections to the Provincial Assemblies of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa following their dissolution. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should exercise its original jurisdiction while identical matters were pending before provincial High Courts and where a High Court had already rendered a judgment. The Court held that the proceedings were not maintainable, emphasizing that the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 184(3) is discretionary and should be exercised with circumspection, particularly when concurrent jurisdiction is already being exercised by High Courts under Article 199. The judgment established that the Supreme Court cannot, directly or indirectly, issue orders of the nature mentioned in Article 199 against a judicial order of a High Court, nor can it bypass the doctrine of res judicata. The Court underscored the principles of judicial federalism, the necessity of judicial restraint, and the requirement for rule-based, transparent procedures for invoking suo motu jurisdiction and constituting benches.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can exercise its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution when the same matter is pending before a High Court under Article 199?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the power to issue an order of the nature mentioned in Article 199 against a judicial order of a High Court?
  • Is the doctrine of res judicata applicable to a decision of a High Court made under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Can the Chief Justice of Pakistan unilaterally reconstitute a bench once it has been constituted and has commenced hearing a case?
  Read full judgment →
• Suo Motu Regarding Holding of General Elections to the Provincial2023 SCP 107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-04-07Read full judgment →
• Suo Motu Case No. 4 of 2022: in the matter of vs Not2023 PLD Supreme Court 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-29
  constitution of benchessuo motu jurisdictionfreedom of speechpemra prohibition orderdue processjudicial accountabilityspecial benches
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a civil petition where a regulation granting additional marks for the memorization of the Holy Qur'an for medical admissions was questioned, leading to the initiation of suo motu proceedings regarding bench constitution practices and a media prohibition order issued by PEMRA. The core legal questions pertained to the Chief Justice's administrative powers to constitute special benches under the Supreme Court Rules 1980, the legality of PEMRA's prohibition order barring discussion on the conduct of judges, and the scope of fundamental rights concerning freedom of speech and due process. The majority held that the Supreme Court Rules do not envisage special benches or grant unilateral power to the Chief Justice to constitute them without transparent rules, and that PEMRA's blanket media gag violates constitutional freedoms of speech and information. The court laid down principles emphasizing that judicial transparency, adherence to established rules for bench formation, and freedom of expression are vital to public trust, and that judicial accountability remains integral to the rule of law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chief Justice of Pakistan have the power under the Supreme Court Rules 1980 to constitute special benches and select judges arbitrarily?
  • Whether PEMRA has the authority under the PEMRA Ordinance 2002 to impose a blanket prohibition on discussing the conduct of judges of the superior courts?
  • Does the prohibition of criticism against judges violate the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Are suo motu proceedings under Article 184(3) of the Constitution subject to transparent procedural rules for case fixation and bench constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Suo Moto Case vs Independent and Transparent Investigation into the Murder of Renowned Journalist, Mr. Arshad Sharif in Kenya2023 SCP 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-06-13
  suo motumurder investigationjournalist assassinationSpecial Joint Investigation TeamMutual Legal AssistanceSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a suo motu case concerning an independent and transparent investigation into the murder of renowned journalist Mr. Arshad Sharif in Kenya. The learned Attorney General for Pakistan submitted reports from the Special Joint Investigation Team and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, noting ongoing negotiations for Mutual Legal Assistance Agreements with Kenya and the UAE, and requested an adjournment. Counsel for the deceased's second wife suggested approaching United Nations Rapporteurs or Committees if direct governmental communication fails. Meanwhile, counsel for the mother of the deceased filed an application seeking a direction from the Court for the Special Joint Investigation Team to examine certain suspected persons. The core legal question addressed is whether the Supreme Court can direct the course of an ongoing investigation in exercise of its suo motu jurisdiction. The Court held that in its suo motu proceedings, it is merely facilitating the investigation and has no mandate to direct the course of investigation, leaving it open for the counsel to approach the investigating team directly. The application was disposed of accordingly and the matter adjourned.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court have the mandate to direct the course of an ongoing criminal investigation in suo motu proceedings?
  • Can the Special Joint Investigation Team be directed by the Court to examine specific persons named by a complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Sundas, Naila Khan, Mst. Reema Naz vs Khyber Medical University thr. V.C.2023 SCP 319, 2024 SCMR 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-10-12
  medical educationeligibility criteriajudicial review in academic mattersconstitutional petitioncompassion and hardshipinterim injunctive ordersprofessional examinations
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing their constitutional petitions, which challenged the cancellation of their student registrations by Khyber Medical University. The petitioners had failed to clear their first or second professional medical examinations within the permitted four chances, rendering them ineligible to continue their MBBS or BDS studies under the Admissions in MBBS/BDS Courses and Conditions for House Job/Internship/Foundation Year Regulations, 2013, framed pursuant to the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962. Although interim injunctive orders from civil courts had previously allowed them to continue their studies, the Supreme Court held that courts must exercise utmost restraint in academic matters, as formulating educational policies and eligibility criteria falls within the exclusive domain of educational experts and regulators. The Court ruled that relief cannot be granted on the grounds of compassion or hardship in violation of binding statutory regulations, and interim orders cannot create legal rights contrary to law. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Whether courts can interfere with the academic policies and eligibility criteria formulated by educational regulators?
  • Can relief be granted to students on grounds of compassion and hardship in violation of binding statutory regulations?
  • Do interim injunctive orders passed by civil courts create enforceable legal rights for students to continue their studies contrary to regulatory eligibility standards?
  • Are the standards set by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council regarding medical education open to judicial review?
  Read full judgment →
• Summit Bank Limited, Lahore vs Messrs M. M. Brothers, Proprietorship2023 CLD 297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-04
  execution proceedingscourt auctionproclamation of salenewspaper publicationsole bidderreserve pricecompetitive biddingBanking Courtfinancial institutions
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Petition for leave to appeal arose from execution proceedings under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 and Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. A decree-holder bank purchased the mortgaged property of judgment debtors as the sole bidder at reserve price after execution proclamation was carried out only through beat of drum and local affixture without newspaper publication. The Lahore High Court set aside the sale and remanded the matter to the Executing Court. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision and refused leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held that while executing a decree through auction under Order XXI, C.P.C., the Executing Court must ensure adequate publicity to obtain a fair market value and protect the judgment debtor’s rights. A valid public auction requires competitive bidding, necessitating at least two potential bidders. Failure to publish proclamation notices in daily newspapers to attract public participants constitutes a material irregularity that causes injustice if it leads to a single-bidder walkover at an inadequate price.

  Questions settled

  • Is newspaper publication of an auction proclamation required to ensure proper publicity in execution proceedings under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court auction sale be sustained where only the decree-holder participates as the sole bidder without competitive bidding?
  • Does the failure to give wide publicity to a court auction sale warrant setting aside the sale if it causes prejudice or injustice to the judgment debtor?
  Read full judgment →
• Summit Bank Limited through Authorized Attorney vs Messrs Oto Pakistan2023 CLD 715 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-15Read full judgment →
• Sumera Rasheed vs The State, etc2023 LHC 6664 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-27Read full judgment →
• Sumama Noor Mazhar vs Pakistan Medical Commission (Erstwhile Pakistan2023 MLD 1859 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-01Read full judgment →
• Sumaira Nazir Siddiqui vs Ministry of Housing and Works through its2023 IHC 360, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 704 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-06
  accommodation allocation rulesgovernment accommodationcivil servantsre-employment after superannuationgeneral waiting listsubject-to-vacancy allotmenthigh court judges privilegesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns consolidated writ petitions challenging the cancellation of official residential accommodation allotted to the petitioner, a retired civil servant re-employed on contract in an MP-I scale, and addressing broader systemic irregularities in the distribution of state-owned housing under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002. The core legal questions involve the eligibility of re-employed contract personnel and retired civil servants for government accommodation under the rules, the legality of subject-to-vacancy allotments, and the proper statutory basis for allocating residences to High Court judges. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Rule 3(4) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, retired civil servants re-employed on contract, particularly in management pay scales, are ineligible for government accommodation, rendering the petitioner's initial allotment void. The court laid down key principles establishing that accommodations must be allotted strictly according to seniority-driven General Waiting Lists, that subject-to-vacancy allotment letters are illegal, and that High Court judges are entitled to official residences under the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997, rather than the civil servants' accommodation rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retired civil servant re-employed on contract against an MP-I scale position is eligible for the allotment of government residential accommodation under Rule 3(4) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
  • Are allotment letters issued by the Ministry of Housing and Works on a subject-to-vacancy basis legally valid under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
  • Does the entitlement of High Court judges to official residence flow from the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997, rather than the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
  • Whether the High Court can exercise suo motu powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Sumaira Nazir Siddique vs Ministry of Housing and Works through its2023 IHC 118 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-16
  official accommodationcivil servantsgeneral waiting listcontract employmenthigh court judgessubject-to-vacancy allotmentdiscriminatory treatmentaccommodation allocation rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses petitions challenging the cancellation of official residential accommodation allotted to the petitioner, a retired civil servant re-employed on contract as a Member of the Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal in MP-1 scale. The core legal questions involved the petitioner's eligibility for government accommodation under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, the legality of subject-to-vacancy allotments, and the correct legal mechanism for providing official residences to High Court judges. The court held that re-employed civil servants on contract in MP-1 scale are ineligible for government accommodation under Rule 3(4) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, rendering the petitioner's initial allotment illegal and its subsequent cancellation lawful. The Islamabad High Court further ruled that subject-to-vacancy allotments are void, that General Waiting Lists must be transparently digitized, and that judges' entitlements to official residences arise strictly from the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997, rather than the civil servants' accommodation rules.

  Questions settled

  • Is a federal government servant re-employed after superannuation on contract in an MP-1 scale eligible for government residential accommodation under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
  • Are allotment letters issued on a subject-to-vacancy basis legally valid under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
  • Does the entitlement of High Court judges to official residence fall under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 or the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997?
  • Can a High Court exercise suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Bahadur Yousufzai vs The State2023 SHC 1132, 2024 MLD 1134 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-07Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmed vs Registrar, Balochistan High Court, Quetta and others2023 SCP 283, PLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 321, 2023 SCMR 1955 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-07-06
  contempt of courtjudicial independencedistrict judiciaryunqualified apologyexecutive interferencedue processsuo motu jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a Balochistan High Court order convicting the appellant, an Assistant Commissioner, for contempt of court following his unauthorized arrest and manhandling of a Qazi (a judicial officer). The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court could initiate suo motu contempt proceedings on a report from a District & Sessions Judge, whether the appellant was denied due process under Article 10A of the Constitution, and whether an unqualified apology necessitates acquittal. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that the High Court possesses inherent jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings to protect the district judiciary, which is the backbone of the justice system. The Court affirmed that an unqualified apology does not grant an automatic right to acquittal; rather, it serves as a mitigating factor for sentencing. The judgment emphasizes that judicial independence requires protection from executive intrusion. Consequently, the Court established mandatory precautionary guidelines for the executive when dealing with criminal matters involving district judicial officers, ensuring transparency, fair treatment, and the protection of judicial dignity.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unqualified apology in contempt proceedings entitle the accused to an automatic discharge?
  • Can a High Court initiate suo motu contempt proceedings based on a report from a District & Sessions Judge?
  • Are judicial officers immune from criminal liability for non-judicial acts?
  • What procedural safeguards must the executive follow when arresting a member of the district judiciary?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmed Hasiimani vs Messrs Thatta Cement Company Limited2023 PLC (C.S.) 527 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-22
  rejection of plaintcause of actionres judicataunlawful dismissaldamagesservice matterfinality of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for recovery of damages filed by a former employee against Thatta Cement Company Limited, predicated on the claim that his prior dismissal from service was unlawful. The core legal question was whether a plaint for damages can be maintained when the underlying dismissal has been adjudicated as lawful by multiple judicial forums, including the Supreme Court, in previous rounds of litigation. The Court held that because the dismissal had been conclusively determined to be lawful, there was no surviving cause of action to support a claim for damages based on an alleged unlawful termination. Granting such relief would effectively bypass and contradict the concurrent findings of the Service Tribunal, the High Court, and the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, affirming the principle that a party cannot re-litigate issues of fact or law that have already reached finality through judicial determination, and that a cause of action for damages cannot exist where the foundational act has been judicially validated.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit for damages based on unlawful dismissal be maintained when the dismissal has already been declared lawful by the Supreme Court?
  • Does a cause of action for damages survive when the underlying act of dismissal has been upheld as lawful in previous litigation?
  • Is a plaint liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, when the plaintiff attempts to re-litigate a settled issue?
  Read full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd, Syed Abbas Raza vs Syed Abbas Raza &2023 SHC 1106 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sui Northern Officers Cooperative Housing Society through Secretary2023 CLC 1516 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-21Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd vs Wafaqi Mohtasib etc2023 LHC 6628, 2024 CLC 1787 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-15Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited, through its General Manager, Rawalpindi vs Muhammad Arshad2023 SCP 325, 2024 SCMR 122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-20
  gas theftmeter tamperingconnected loadburden of proofgas utility courtpilferage chargesOGRA procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner, Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL), against a judgment of the Gas Utility Court. The respondent had filed a civil suit challenging a gas utility bill calculated on the basis of alleged meter tampering. The Trial Court decreed the suit, setting aside the bill while permitting recovery of the meter cost, a decision upheld by the High Court both on procedural grounds and on merits. The core legal question revolved around the burden of proof and the mandatory adherence to the procedure prescribed for assessing gas theft and pilferage charges, including the determination of connected load. The Supreme Court held that mere submission of a calculation sheet or proof of meter tampering without assessing the actual connected load through a proper committee and inventory, in accordance with the standard operating procedures approved by the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA), is insufficient to establish liability. The Court affirmed that the burden of proof lies on the utility company to substantiate its assessment through convincing evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a gas utility company can assess and recover gas pilferage charges without determining the connected load through a proper committee and inventory as required by OGRA procedures?
  • Does the mere production of a calculation sheet and a meter inspection report discharge the utility company's burden of proof regarding the quantum of gas theft?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial and high courts regarding the lack of evidence to support assessed gas consumption charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipeline through Incharge Sui Gas Office, Charsadda and 2 others vs Gul Hakeem and another2023 CLC 96 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-24Read full judgment →
• Sughran Bibi, etc vs Muhammad Nawaz, etc2023 LHC 6374 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-30Read full judgment →
• Sufi Abdul Qadeer, etc vs Learned Addl. District Judge, etc2023 LHC 3225, 2024 PTD 299 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-31Read full judgment →
• Sudheer through Senior Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad vs The State2023 PCRLJ 25 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-02
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtSection 342 CrPCdelayed FIRappreciation of evidenceacquittalmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Jail Appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed upon the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and recording witness statements, and whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant while acquitting a co-accused based on identical evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court emphasized that unexplained delays in FIR registration and recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 undermine witness credibility. Furthermore, the court ruled that incriminating evidence, including recovery reports and expert findings, cannot be used against an accused if not specifically put to them during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, affirming that the benefit of doubt is a legal right, not a concession.

  Questions settled

  • Can incriminating evidence be used against an accused if it was not put to them during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the same evidence necessitate the acquittal of the remaining accused in the absence of independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal effect of unexplained delays in lodging an FIR and recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Subtain Abbas Nizami vs Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, etc2023 LHC 2963 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Subhan Allah vs The State and another2023 PLD Lahore 578 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-14
  fair trialprivileged documentspolice diariespolice registerssummoning of documentscriminal revisionanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arises from an order passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to summon specific police station registers (Registers Nos. II, XIX, and XXI) during trial. The trial court had refused the request on the grounds that these registers constituted privileged documents under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether police registers maintained under the Police Rules, 1934, are privileged documents governed by Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether an accused person can summon them to ensure a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Court held that Section 172 applies exclusively to police case diaries and does not extend to general police registers maintained under the Police Rules, 1934, which are public documents. The Lahore High Court set aside the trial court's order, allowing the revision petition and directing the trial court to summon the requested registers, thereby reinforcing the constitutional right to a fair trial and the broad powers of courts to summon necessary documents under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

  Questions settled

  • Whether registers maintained under the Police Rules, 1934 are privileged documents governed by Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can an accused person summon police station registers under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for the purposes of defense during a criminal trial?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 entitle an accused to access non-privileged public documents held by the police?
  • What is the scope of a trial court's power to summon documents necessary or desirable for the just decision of a case under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Subhan Ali and 3 others vs The State2023 YLR 1722 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-23
  murder convictionocular evidencemedical evidenceunnatural conduct of witnessesproof of motivecriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for the murder of the deceased, Ali Asghar, under sections 302, 504, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, whether the ocular account was consistent with medical evidence, and whether the alleged unnatural conduct of witnesses or failure to prove motive warranted acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt through consistent eyewitness testimony, which was corroborated by medical evidence showing lacerated wounds consistent with the weapons used. The Court rejected arguments regarding the unnatural conduct of witnesses, noting the disparity in numbers and the suddenness of the attack. It further held that the failure to prove motive is not fatal to the prosecution's case, particularly where the sentence of life imprisonment has already been imposed. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was upheld, affirming that the evidence was trustworthy and confidence-inspiring.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive in a murder case necessitate acquittal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a discrepancy between the lay witness description of wounds and the medical expert's description?
  • Is the non-intervention of witnesses during a sudden attack by multiple armed assailants sufficient to render their testimony unnatural or unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Subhan & others vs The State2023 SHC 594 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-25
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtidentification paradeinadmissible confessionocular testimonypolice custodyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder and robbery. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the appellants were not named in the FIR, no identification parade was conducted for unknown accused, and the ocular testimony was contradictory. The court held that the prosecution's case relied heavily on confessions made to police, which are inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and that the failure to conduct an identification parade for unknown offenders, coupled with significant discrepancies in the testimony of the eye-witnesses and the non-recovery of case property, rendered the conviction unsustainable. The court reaffirmed the principle that conviction must be based on unimpeachable, substantive evidence. It held 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. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based solely on a confession made to a police officer while in custody?
  • Is an identification parade necessary when the FIR is lodged against unknown persons?
  • Does a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitle the accused to acquittal?
  • Can conviction be sustained in the absence of substantive or direct evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• State/Anti-Narcotics Force through Assistant Director and another vs2023 PCRLJ 111 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-21
  criminal revisionexpert opinionchemical examinerCall Data Recordnarcotics reweighingsummoning witness
  Summary & questions settled

  The Anti-Narcotics Force and an accused person respectively filed criminal revision applications before the Sindh High Court challenging orders of the trial court that dismissed their respective applications. The ANF sought to summon a chemical examiner as a witness to give an expert opinion on whether the weight of a narcotics substance could alter due to lapse of time following a discrepancy found upon reweighing, while the accused sought to summon records for the verification of a Call Data Record (CDR) of the complainant's mobile phone to establish his location. The core legal questions involved the propriety of summoning an expert witness at a belated stage to explain weight discrepancies and the admissibility or verification of a CDR introduced by the accused. The High Court held that both applications should be allowed, directing the trial court to summon the chemical examiner as a court witness for expert opinion and to summon an official from the mobile franchise to verify the CDR already brought on record. The key principle laid down is that where an expert's evidence or document is essential to resolve a controversy that arose during trial, such as a discrepancy in narcotics weight or the verification of a phone record already introduced, it should be examined and verified to ensure a fair consideration of the case without causing prejudice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution can summon a chemical examiner as a witness to explain a discrepancy in the weight of a recovered narcotic substance arising from a lapse of time?
  • Can an accused person seek verification of a Call Data Record of the complainant's mobile phone brought on record through a statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does summoning an expert witness or verifying a document at an advanced stage of the trial cause material prejudice to the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad Imran2023 LHC 6572, 2024 PCRLJ 1111 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-12
  limitation periodcondonation of delayspecial lawacquittal appealnarcotics casepresumption of innocencestate litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The State filed an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, who was acquitted under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a narcotics case. The primary legal question was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, given that the appeal was time-barred. The Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is inapplicable to proceedings under special laws like the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, due to the exclusionary provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1908. Furthermore, the Court rejected the State's argument for preferential treatment, affirming that the Government is subject to the same limitation standards as private litigants. The Court established that where a special law does not prescribe a specific limitation period, the general Limitation Act applies, but the condonation provisions of Section 5 are excluded by operation of law. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal was rejected as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to condone delay in filing an appeal under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can the State claim preferential treatment regarding the condonation of delay in filing appeals?
  • Does the limitation period for filing an appeal against acquittal run against a void order?
  • What is the effect of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1908 on the applicability of Section 5 to special laws?
  Read full judgment →
• State vs Javed Iqbal & another2023 PHC 460 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-02Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Inayatur2023 YLR 1338 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-04
  narcoticsacquittal appealevidentiary contradictionsrecovery proceedingschemical examiner reportreasonable doubtcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the State under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court in a case registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt regarding the recovery of narcotics. Upon review, the High Court identified significant discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, including inconsistencies in the time of FIR registration, uncertainty regarding the identity of the official who transported samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and conflicting testimonies from key witnesses regarding the recovery proceedings and the weighing process. Furthermore, the physical examination of the case property revealed that the weights did not match the reported quantities, and the chemical analysis report was deemed unreliable due to missing signatures and unexplained delays. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, and the acquittal was upheld. The judgment reinforces the principle that material contradictions and procedural lapses in narcotics cases create reasonable doubt, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant discrepancy between the time of FIR registration and the testimony of police witnesses regarding the receipt of the murasila undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained in a narcotics case where the weight of the recovered contraband does not match the quantities reported in the recovery memo?
  • Is a chemical analysis report reliable if it lacks the signature of the chemical examiner and shows an unexplained delay in the submission of samples?
  • Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to provide consistent testimony regarding the recovery process and the identity of the sample carrier warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Aqil Muhammad2023 YLR 2599 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-04
  narcotics traffickingacquittal appealbenefit of doubtforensic science laboratoryprocedural delaycriminal evidenceunlicensed weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court in a case involving the possession of narcotics and an unlicensed firearm. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the evidence and procedural lapses. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with fatal contradictions, including discrepancies regarding the time of occurrence, the nature of the alleged act, and the quantity of narcotics recovered. Furthermore, the Court noted a significant, unexplained delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, violating the 72-hour requirement under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001. Additionally, the failure to associate public witnesses for the weapon recovery and the absence of an arms expert report further weakened the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court upheld the acquittal, affirming the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's narrative entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in sending narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory beyond the 72-hour period provided in the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001 vitiate the prosecution case?
  • What are the parameters for reversing an acquittal in a criminal appeal?
  • Is the failure to associate public witnesses during a recovery in a populous area fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's evidence entitle an accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Hidayat Ullah2023 PHC 197 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• State through Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Nawab Ali Khan2023 PHC 488 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-14Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Aqil Muhammad2023 PHC 195 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
• State through A.A.G. at Dar-ul-Qaza Swat vs Khalid Khan and Another2023 PHC 68, 2024 MLD 348 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-24Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Government of Punjab, etc2023 LHC 5714 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation vs Member / Registrar Rtu & Others2023 SHC 1134 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-07
  Collective Bargaining AgentIndustrial Relations Act 2012National Industrial Relations CommissionTrade UnionReferendumLabour Law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges the order of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission, which upheld a Single Bench decision directing a referendum to determine a new Collective Bargaining Agent for the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan. The petitioner contended that the referendum was unlawful due to pending litigation regarding the registration of a rival union and disputed the consent given for the referendum. The core legal question was whether the National Industrial Relations Commission was justified in ordering a fresh referendum despite these contentions. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming the concurrent findings of the National Industrial Relations Commission. The Court held that once the statutory tenure of an existing Collective Bargaining Agent expires, the law mandates the determination of a new Collective Bargaining Agent to ensure effective collective bargaining. The Court emphasized that this statutory requirement cannot be defeated by procedural pretexts or pending litigation concerning the registration of other unions. The principle established is that the expiration of a Collective Bargaining Agent's term triggers an immediate legal obligation to conduct a fresh referendum for the establishment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a referendum for a new Collective Bargaining Agent be held after the expiry of the incumbent's statutory tenure?
  • Does the pendency of an appeal regarding the registration of a trade union prevent the determination of a new Collective Bargaining Agent?
  • Is the requirement to hold a referendum for a Collective Bargaining Agent mandatory upon the expiry of the statutory term?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, etc vs Mst. Undlus Begum2023 LHC 6672, 2024 CLD 445 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-22Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and others vs Surriya Asghar2023 CLD 393 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-29Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (Slic) through duly authorized2023 CLD 912 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-27
  life insurance claimrepudiation of insurance contractconcealment of pre-existing illnessburden of proofadmissibility of documentsbest evidence ruleuberrimae fidei
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the Insurance Tribunal, whereby the respondent's suit for recovery of an insurance claim under Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 was decreed. The core legal question was whether the insurer could validly repudiate the life insurance contract and avoid liability under Section 79 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 on the grounds of alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment of pre-existing illness regarding the deceased insured. The Lahore High Court held that the insurer failed to prove fraud or misrepresentation as the medical prescription and inquiry report relied upon were not legally proved through the testimony of their respective authors or makers in terms of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, rendering them inadmissible for establishing the truth of their contents. The Court laid down that production of a private document does not confer probative value without formal proof by its author under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, that the burden to prove concealment and fraud under Section 79 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 rests heavily upon the insurer, and that a short span between policy revival and death does not per se create a presumption of fraud.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an insurer can avoid a life insurance contract under Section 79 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 without formally proving the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation?
  • Does the mere production of a private medical prescription or inquiry report in evidence dispense with the requirement of producing its author for cross-examination under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Whether the early death of an insured person shortly after the revival of an insurance policy constitutes per se a suspicious circumstance or sufficient ground to deny an insurance claim?
  • What is the legal effect of withholding the best available evidence, such as the inquiry officer or the author of a medical prescription, during judicial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation and another vs Mst. Razia Ameer and another2023 CLD 517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-06
  liquidated damagesinsurance claimgroup insurancelate settlementrepudiation of claimInsurance Tribunalearly retirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This direct appeal by the insurer challenges the judgment of the first Appellate Court which varied the decision of the Insurance Tribunal, Punjab, and held that the legal heirs of the assured person were entitled to claim liquidated damages under section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. The core legal question examined by the court was whether the legal heirs of a deceased assured person under a group insurance scheme can claim liquidated damages for late settlement of their claim where the initial repudiation of the insurance claim was found to be unlawful and based on a subsequently signed policy. The Supreme Court held that the first Appellate Court's decision was legally sound, ruling that payment of liquidated damages is an implied term of every insurance contract under section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, and that legal heirs of the assured are entitled to such damages when a claim is unduly delayed without lawful justification or circumstances beyond the insurer's control. The court established that group insurance contracts inherently benefit the family of the assured, and insurers cannot evade statutory liquidated damages for delayed settlements.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the legal heirs of an assured person are entitled to claim liquidated damages under section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 for late settlement of an insurance claim?
  • Does an insurance policy become effective from the date it is signed by the executants?
  • Whether the legal heirs have standing to claim liquidated damages under a group insurance contract even if the assured person was not a direct signatory to it?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation & another vs Mst. Razia Ameer & another2023 SCP 79 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-06
  liquidated damagesgroup insurancelate settlement of claimsinsurance tribunalrepudiation of claimimplied termearly retirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This direct appeal by the insurer challenges a judgment of the first Appellate Court which favored the legal heirs of an assured person regarding the payment of liquidated damages under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. The husband of respondent No.1 was covered under a Group Insurance contract, took early retirement on medical grounds, and subsequently passed away. His insurance claim was initially repudiated by the insurer on the ground that revised contracts did not cover early retirees, though the sum assured was eventually paid years later after further policy revisions. The Insurance Tribunal dismissed the claim for liquidated damages, but the first Appellate Court reversed this. The Supreme Court examined the competing judgments and held that the payment of liquidated damages for late settlement of claims is an implied statutory term of every insurance contract under Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, and that legal heirs are entitled to such damages when a claim is unduly delayed without lawful justification. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Are the legal heirs of an assured person entitled to claim liquidated damages for late settlement under Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000?
  • Does an insurance policy become effective from the date it is signed by the executants?
  • Can an insurer avoid paying liquidated damages when a group insurance claim is delayed without circumstances beyond its control?
  Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Mohammad Naeem and others2023 SCMR 737 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-10
  civil review petitionconstitution of benchessupreme court rulesleave to appealdollar bearer certificatemarkup ratejurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil review petition was filed by the State Bank of Pakistan against a consolidated order of a two-member bench of the Supreme Court which had modified a High Court judgment regarding Dollar Bearer Certificates by reducing the markup rate from 10% to 2% without formally granting leave to appeal. The core legal question was whether a two-member bench could modify a High Court judgment and dispose of a matter without granting leave to appeal and without constituting a three-member bench as mandated by rules. The Supreme Court held that under Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, a two-member bench may hear petitions for leave to appeal, but it cannot alter, amend, or modify an appellate judgment of the High Court without granting leave and without the matter being heard by a bench of not less than three judges. Consequently, the review petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the civil petition for leave to appeal was restored for hearing before a three-member bench.

  Questions settled

  • Can a two-member bench of the Supreme Court modify or alter a High Court judgment without granting leave to appeal?
  • What is the quorum requirement under Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 for hearing and disposing of causes, appeals, or matters other than petitions for leave to appeal?
  • Whether an order passed by a two-member bench without granting leave and altering a High Court judgment is liable to be reviewed?
  Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Federation of Pakistan and 4 others2023 PLD Lahore 392 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-26Read full judgment →
• Sprint Oil and Gas Services FZC B-5, Sector I-10_3, Islamabad vs Commissioner Inland Revenue Lto, Islamabad2023 ATIR 10 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2023-11-21Read full judgment →
• Spi Insurance Company Limited and the United Insurance Company of Pakistan Limited_ In the matter of vs Not2023 CLD 1088 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-23Read full judgment →
• Special Secretary-II (Law and Order), Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others vs Fayyaz Dawar2023 SCMR 1442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-14
  constitutional jurisdictiondisputed questions of factadequate remedylachescompensation claimretrospective applicationwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a Peshawar High Court judgment allowing a writ petition and directing the petitioners to pay the respondent Rs.26,54,000/- as compensation for alleged housing damages incurred during a 2007 military operation. The petitioners challenged the judgment on grounds of disputed factual controversies, non-retrospective applicability of the 2013 compensation policy, and laches, as the writ petition was filed 12 years after the incident. The Supreme Court of Pakistan set aside the High Court's judgment and dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to establish rights or resolve disputed questions of fact requiring evidence. Where a claim is unestablished under existing policy or law, the plenary civil court is the appropriate venue. Furthermore, an unexplained delay of 12 years in filing a constitutional petition renders it barred by laches, which cannot be excused merely by engaging in administrative correspondence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact requiring evidence under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does engaging in administrative correspondence excuse an undue delay in filing a constitutional petition from being barred by laches?
  • Is a suit in a civil court an adequate alternate remedy precluding writ jurisdiction when a compensation claim involves controverted facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Special Secretary-II (Law & Order), Home & Tribal Affairs Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others vs Fayyaz Dawar2023 SCP 199, 2023 SCMR 1097, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  writ jurisdictiondisputed questions of factlachesconstitutional petitioncompensation claimcivil suitadequate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment that granted compensation to the respondent for property damage allegedly sustained during 2007 military operations. The core legal questions were whether the High Court could adjudicate disputed questions of fact in its constitutional jurisdiction and whether a claim filed after a twelve-year delay was barred by laches. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in exercising writ jurisdiction to resolve complex factual controversies regarding the extent of property damage, which required evidence and plenary adjudication. The Court reaffirmed that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is intended for enforcing clear rights rather than establishing disputed ones, and that civil courts provide the appropriate forum for such litigation. Furthermore, the Court found the respondent’s claim significantly delayed, thereby invoking the doctrine of laches. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the respondent's writ petition, emphasizing that disputed factual claims must be pursued through ordinary civil procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court resolve disputed questions of fact in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is a writ petition an appropriate remedy for a claim that requires the recording of evidence and the resolution of factual controversies?
  • Does the doctrine of laches apply to a constitutional petition filed twelve years after the cause of action arose?
  • What is the standard for determining whether a remedy is 'adequate' to bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Sono Khuhawar vs The State2023 MLD 548 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-16
  fair trialcriminal appealdeath sentence confirmationadmission of evidenceprocedural irregularityremandright to cross-examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court violated the appellant's right to a fair trial by admitting medical evidence after the prosecution had closed its case without providing notice to the defense or allowing for the cross-examination of the medical officer. The Sindh High Court held that the procedure adopted by the trial court was flawed and prejudicial to the appellant's defense. The Court emphasized that when the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence after closing its case, it must follow the procedure mandated by law, specifically by summoning the author of the documents for examination. The Court set aside the impugned judgment, remanded the case for a fresh trial before a different judge, and directed that the medical evidence be properly brought on record in accordance with the law. The decision underscores the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Does the admission of evidence after the prosecution has closed its case without notice to the defense violate the right to a fair trial?
  • Is it legally permissible for a trial court to admit medical certificates into evidence without summoning the author for examination under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a case be transferred to a different judge upon remand if the original presiding officer has already formed an opinion on the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Sonia Javed and another vs The State and others2023 PHC 576 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-28Read full judgment →
• Sohrab Khan vs Allied Bank Limited2023 SHC 495 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-26
  rejection of plaintlimitationservice disputewrongful dismissalcivil procedurecause of actionbank employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the rejection of a plaint in a service dispute. The plaintiff, a former bank employee dismissed in 2002, sought reinstatement and damages following his acquittal in a criminal case in 2011. The defendant bank argued that the suit was time-barred and failed to disclose a cause of action, noting that the plaintiff’s departmental appeals were dismissed in 2002 and never challenged. The core legal question was whether the suit, filed in 2017, was maintainable given the significant delay and the statutory limitation periods. The Court held that the suit was clearly time-barred, as the plaintiff failed to justify the delay between his dismissal, the rejection of his departmental appeals, and the filing of the suit. Applying the Limitation Act 1908, the Court ruled that claims for compensation and service-related grievances must be brought within the prescribed statutory timeframes. Consequently, the Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint, affirming that limitation issues with substantial bearing on the merits require strict adherence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for damages and reinstatement filed years after the dismissal of departmental appeals is maintainable?
  • Does the acquittal in a criminal case automatically extend the limitation period for filing a civil suit regarding service termination?
  • Is a suit for monetary compensation and service restoration against a private entity subject to the limitation periods prescribed in the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the suit is clearly time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohney Khan and 2 others vs Ghulam Muhammad and 8 others2023 PLD Lahore 344 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-04Read full judgment →
• Sohail S/O Shafi Muhammad vs The State2023 SHC 540 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-10Read full judgment →
• Sohail Shahzad vs Chief Election Commission of Pakistan and 4 others2023 MLD 602 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-02Read full judgment →
• Sohail Niaz Gill vs Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad and others2023 MLD 708 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-16Read full judgment →
• Sohail Majeed Bhatti vs Muhammad Ashraf (Late) through Legal Heirs and others2023 CLC 1357 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-06Read full judgment →
• Sohail Majeed Bhatti vs Muhammad Ashraf (late) through his legal heirs2023 IHC 10 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sohail Khattak vs The State2023 MLD 1924 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-13
  post-arrest bailidentification paradefurther inquiryrobbed vehicleSection 103 CrPCun-nominated accusedrecovery of stolen property
  Summary & questions settled

  This common order disposes of two post-arrest bail applications arising from Crime No. 78/2021 registered under Sections 397, 34, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants sought bail after their initial plea was rejected by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the failure of the prosecution to conduct an identification parade for un-nominated accused persons, coupled with non-compliance with statutory search procedure, entitled them to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that the case called for further inquiry. The Court laid down that holding an identification parade is essential where accused persons are not named in the FIR, and its omission cannot be bypassed merely because robbed property was allegedly recovered from them. Additionally, failure to associate public witnesses during recovery on a public thoroughfare violates Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bringing the matter within the scope of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-holding of an identification parade for an un-nominated accused bring the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the requirement of an identification parade be dispensed with simply because the accused was subsequently found in possession of the robbed property?
  • Does the failure to associate public witnesses during a recovery from a public thoroughfare violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the purposes of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Akhtar, Rahul Naazir vs The State, Sohail Akhtar, etc2023 SCP 305, 2024 SCMR 67 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-25
  murder convictionocular evidenceinterested witnessesforensic reportsentence enhancementcriminal appeallife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction for murder and related offences. The petitioner, Sohail Akhtar, was convicted by the trial court for the murder of Adil Javed and causing injuries to his son, receiving a death sentence and other terms. The High Court, while maintaining the convictions, commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The petitioner challenged his conviction, while the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular evidence, the credibility of interested witnesses, and the evidentiary value of forensic reports regarding weapon recovery. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that the ocular account was consistent with medical evidence and that the prosecution witnesses were credible. It further held that the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence and that the sentence of life imprisonment was justified under the circumstances. Consequently, the Court dismissed both the petitioner's appeal and the complainant's petition for enhancement of sentence, refusing leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence that is consistent with medical evidence despite minor contradictions?
  • Does the failure to produce a witness mentioned in a medical report automatically render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Is a sentence of life imprisonment appropriate where the High Court has already commuted a death sentence based on the appreciation of evidence?
  • Does the delay in sending crime empties to a forensic laboratory necessarily invalidate the forensic evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sobharo vs The State2023 MLD 1650 · Sindh High Court
  murderqatl-i-amdinjured witnesscapital punishmentdeath sentence confirmationballistic matchdissolution of marriageappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and confirmation reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Sobharo, under section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-i-amd of his mother-in-law and father-in-law, along with convictions for firearm injuries inflicted upon his wife and another relative, as well as an offence under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The core legal questions involved the assessment of ocular testimony from injured eyewitnesses, the weight to be given to prompt reporting, and the evidentiary value of medical and ballistic reports. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a shadow of doubt through consistent, unimpeachable ocular accounts of injured witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was indubitable, corroborated by medical and positive ballistic evidence. The key principles laid down are that the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status and inspires high confidence, that minor discrepancies do not vitiate a solid prosecution case, and that brutal premeditated murders arising from domestic disputes warrant no leniency in awarding the deterrent death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured eyewitness carries special evidentiary weight in criminal trials?
  • Does the mere close relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased render their evidence unreliable?
  • Whether minor contradictions and discrepancies in ocular testimony are sufficient to discard an otherwise consistent prosecution case?
  • Is a positive ballistic report matching crime empties with a recovered weapon sufficient corroboration of the ocular account?
  Read full judgment →
• Snamprogetti Engineering B.V. through Special Attorney vs Commissioner2023 PTD 863, 2023 PTCL 722, 2023 SCMR 1055 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-02
  double taxation treatypermanent establishmentincome tax exemptiontreaty interpretationnon-resident companybusiness profitstax reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a tax dispute regarding whether income derived by a non-resident company from engineering services provided to a local entity is exempt from income tax under the Pakistan-Netherlands Double Taxation Convention. The core legal question was whether the petitioner maintained a "permanent establishment" in Pakistan under Article 5 of the Convention, thereby rendering its business profits taxable. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner did not constitute a permanent establishment. The Court rejected the lower forums' reliance on the total project duration, holding that the "furnishing of services" threshold requires the actual physical presence of employees or personnel in the source country for an aggregate period exceeding four months within a twelve-month period. As the petitioner’s personnel were present for only 97 days, the threshold was not satisfied. The Court established that international tax treaties, governed by customary international law and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, must be interpreted independently of domestic tax statutes. Furthermore, treaty provisions override domestic law, and the burden of proving a permanent establishment lies with the tax department.

  Questions settled

  • Does the duration of a project contract determine the existence of a permanent establishment for service-based activities under the Pakistan-Netherlands Double Taxation Convention?
  • Is the interpretation of international tax treaties governed by domestic tax law or customary international law?
  • Does the 'furnishing of services' clause in a tax treaty require the physical presence of personnel in the source country to constitute a permanent establishment?
  • Can tax authorities rely on the total duration of a project to establish a permanent establishment if the actual physical presence of personnel is less than the treaty-mandated threshold?
  Read full judgment →
• Snamprogetti Engineering B.V. thr. its Special Attorney vs Commissioner of Inland Revenue Zone-II, L.T.U, Islamabad, etc2023 SCP 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  permanent establishmentdouble taxation conventionengineering servicesinternational taxationtax exemptionincome taxtreaty interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal by a non-resident foreign company seeking tax exemption on income derived from engineering services provided to a local company under a contract, in light of the double taxation treaty between Pakistan and the Netherlands. The core legal question revolves around whether the income derived from the provision of engineering services is exempt from income tax or liable to be taxed under the normal tax regime of Pakistan due to the existence of a permanent establishment. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner did not maintain a permanent establishment in Pakistan under Article 5 of the Convention, as the physical presence and rendering of services by its employees within the country did not aggregate beyond the mandatory threshold of four months within any twelve-month period. Consequently, the Court ruled that the income is exempt from income tax in Pakistan, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the Tribunal while restoring the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). The key principle laid down is that the determination of a permanent establishment for furnishing services under tax treaties requires actual physical presence and activity extending beyond the specified time threshold, and interpretation of international tax treaties must be governed by international legal standards rather than strict domestic tax rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether income derived from providing engineering services by a non-resident company is taxable in Pakistan without a permanent establishment?
  • How is the time threshold for a permanent establishment relating to the furnishing of services under Article 5 of the double taxation convention to be calculated?
  • Does the mere execution of an engineering contract create a permanent establishment under the Pakistan-Netherlands Double Taxation Convention?
  • What is the extent of the burden of proof required on the tax department to establish the existence of a permanent establishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Sirat Naeem vs Province of Punjab, etc2023 LHC 2473 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-13Read full judgment →
• Siraj S/O Sher Muhammad vs The State2023 SHC 904, 2025 YLR 1061 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-19
  post-arrest bailconfession before policeinadmissibility of co-accused statementtest identification paradefurther inquiryaccomplice evidencerobbery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant/accused challenging the trial court's order refusing him post-arrest bail in a case involving an armed robbery resulting in the fatal shooting of a victim. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether an accused can be implicated solely based on an uncorroborated confessional statement of a co-accused recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the legal effect of failing to conduct a test identification parade when the accused was originally unknown. The High Court observed that under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, statements of co-accused to the police are inadmissible in evidence against a co-accused and accomplice evidence is viewed with suspicion. Additionally, the lack of an identification parade and the absence of any incriminating recovery rendered the prosecution's evidence merely hearsay at this stage. Consequently, the High Court held that the case warranted further inquiry and granted the applicant bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person be denied bail solely on the basis of a statement made by a co-accused to the police during investigation?
  • Whether an admission or confession of an accused made before the police is admissible in evidence against a co-accused under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Is the holding of an identification parade mandatory when an accused is not named or described in the First Information Report?
  Read full judgment →
• Siraj Ahmad vs The State2023 PHC 516 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-14
  criminal appealsentence reductionmurder convictionsexual assaultconcurrent sentencesdeath penaltychild protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This Jail Criminal Appeal challenges the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant, Siraj Ahmad, by the trial court in a case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010. The appellant was convicted for offenses including murder and sexual assault. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court concerned the appropriateness of the death sentences imposed by the trial court. Upon review, the High Court maintained the convictions but exercised its discretion to modify the sentences. The court held that the death sentences on two counts under Section 302(b) and Section 376(3) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 should be reduced to imprisonment for life on both counts. The court further ordered that all sentences of imprisonment run concurrently, granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and upheld the trial court's order regarding compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Murder Reference submitted by the trial court was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court reduce a death sentence to imprisonment for life in a criminal appeal?
  • Does the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to sentences of life imprisonment?
  • Should multiple sentences of imprisonment run concurrently or consecutively in the absence of specific trial court directions?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindh Revenue Board through Secretary Government of Sindh, Karachi and others vs Messrs Quick Food Industries (Pvt.) Limited and others2023 SCMR 1776, PTCL 2024 CL. 509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-12
  sales tax on servicesvalue of taxable servicedelegated legislationreimbursable expensesgross amount chargedfiscal statute interpretationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging the Sindh Revenue Board's (SRB) practice of including salaries and allowances of security and manpower personnel in the 'gross amount charged' for levying sales tax on services. The core legal question was whether such reimbursable expenses form part of the 'value of taxable service' under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011, and whether the SRB could expand the tax base through delegated legislation. The Supreme Court held that sales tax is leviable only on the consideration paid for the service rendered. Salaries and allowances, being reimbursable expenses borne by the service recipient, do not constitute part of the taxable service or its value. The Court established the principle that delegated legislation cannot override or expand the scope of the parent statute. Taxing provisions must align with the taxable event defined in the Act, and Rules are intended only to effectuate the statute's mandate, not to alter its substantive scope. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming that the tax cannot be levied on amounts beyond the value of the service provided.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 'gross amount charged' for sales tax purposes include reimbursable salaries and allowances paid to personnel?
  • Can delegated legislation (Rules) expand the scope of a charging provision in a fiscal statute?
  • Are salaries and allowances paid to security and manpower personnel part of the 'value of taxable service' under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011?
  • Does the omission of a clarifying proviso in delegated legislation alter the substantive scope of the parent statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Silver Star Insurance Company Limited, Lahore vs M/s Kamal Pipes2023 LHC 750 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Silver Star Insurance Company Limited, Lahore through Chief Executive vs Messrs Kamal Pipes Industries, Lahore and another2023 CLD 1342 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-16
  insurance claimadmission of liabilityestoppelapprobate and reprobateinsurance tribunaldecreere-insurance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment by the Insurance Tribunal, which decreed an insurance claim against the appellant, Silver Star Insurance Company Limited, based on the company's admission of liability. The core legal question was whether the appellant could challenge a decree passed upon its own admission of liability and whether the Tribunal erred by not deciding pending applications to implead a re-insurer before issuing the final judgment. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellant’s unequivocal acknowledgment of the claim and promise to pay created a binding estoppel under Article 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court invoked the doctrine of 'approbate and reprobate,' ruling that a party cannot simultaneously accept a liability and later challenge the resulting decree. Furthermore, the Court held that the Tribunal was not obligated to decide miscellaneous applications regarding re-insurance arrangements, as such matters were irrelevant to the established contractual liability between the insurer and the insured. The judgment affirms that clear judicial admissions preclude subsequent attempts to evade liability through procedural technicalities.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge a decree passed by a court based on its own unequivocal admission of liability?
  • Does the doctrine of 'approbate and reprobate' prevent a party from challenging a judgment after admitting the claim in the underlying proceedings?
  • Is a court required to decide all pending miscellaneous applications before passing a final judgment if the main controversy is resolved by admission?
  • Does a dispute between an insurer and a re-insurer constitute a valid ground to implead the re-insurer in a claim between the insurer and the insured?
  Read full judgment →
• Silk Bank Limited vs Zafar Mehmood Shaikh and another2023 CLD 1040 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-15Read full judgment →
• Silk Bank Limited vs M/s Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited and 14 others2023 LHC 6084, 2024 CLD 278 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-29Read full judgment →
• Sikander Ali Kalwar vs Hamid Raza and 06 others, Tofiq Ahmed @ Tofiq Ali2023 SHC 880 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-23
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationprohibitory clausefurther enquirycommon intentioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The captioned applications under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impugned orders of the Additional Sessions Judge granting post-arrest bail to the private respondents in respect of an FIR registered under Sections 324, 452, 114, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 147, 148, 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled on the ground that the alleged offences fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the trial court's assessment distinguishing the role of the private respondents and finding their case to be one of further enquiry was not patently illegal or perverse, and no misuse of bail or strong and exceptional grounds for cancellation were shown. The key principle laid down is that the considerations for the grant of bail and for its cancellation are different, and once bail is granted by a court of competent jurisdiction, strong and exceptional grounds are required for its cancellation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether strong and exceptional grounds are required for the cancellation of bail once granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Does the mere fact that an offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 necessitate the cancellation of post-arrest bail?
  • Are the considerations for the grant of bail and for the cancellation of bail the same?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali vs The State2023 YLR 427 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-10
  fake police encounterbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRcriminal appealacquittalappreciation of evidenceidentification evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the murder of the deceased in an alleged fake police encounter. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given a 25-day delay in lodging the FIR, the non-examination of material witnesses, and the weak identification evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt, noting that the same evidence had led to the acquittal of co-accused persons, which had attained finality. The Court emphasized that the delay in filing the FIR, the failure to produce material witnesses, and the unreliability of identification under motorcycle lights created reasonable doubt. The key principles laid down are that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and that prosecution witnesses disbelieved regarding one accused cannot be relied upon to convict another without independent corroboration. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a 25-day delay in lodging an FIR, when unexplained, create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Can prosecution witnesses who are disbelieved regarding one accused be relied upon to convict another accused without independent corroboration?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if there is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to examine material witnesses on the overall case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali and others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Education2023 PLC (C.S.) 566 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-14
  promotion policyvested rightquota for promotioncivil servantsconstitutional petitionup-gradationinitial appointmentmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, working as Primary School Teachers (BPS-09), filed a constitutional petition seeking implementation of a notification dated January 15, 2021, which provided a 50% promotion quota for Junior Elementary School Teachers (BPS-14), and challenged a subsequent notification dated March 8, 2022, which abolished the promotion quota in favor of 100% initial appointments due to enhanced educational qualifications. The core legal question was whether the petitioners had a vested right to promotion under the earlier policy that could not be taken away by a subsequent amendment in the rules. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petition was maintainable as it involved an abrupt change in policy affecting service conditions rather than mere eligibility or fitness, but held on merits that promotion is not a vested right and the government is fully competent to alter promotion policies and prescribe qualifications in the interest of service efficiency. The court established that executive policy-making and rule amendments regarding promotion quotas lie within the exclusive domain of the government and do not warrant judicial interference.

  Questions settled

  • Does a government employee have a vested right to claim promotion under existing rules prior to a policy amendment?
  • Whether the government is competent to alter promotion policies and change recruitment quotas for civil servants?
  • Is a constitutional petition challenging an amendment to a promotion policy barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can the High Court interfere with executive policy-making regarding the prescription of qualifications for public posts?
  Read full judgment →
• Shumaila Sharif vs Secretary Union Council etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 479 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-16Read full judgment →
• Shujat Hussain vs Provincial Election Commissioner, Balochistan & others2023 SCP 151, 2024 PLJ SC 25, 2023 PLD Supreme Court 500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-29
  local government electionelection petitionElection Tribunaljurisdictionalternative remedyre-pollwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding the election of the Chairman of Union Council-15, Padagai, District Chaghi, held under the Balochistan Local Government Act 2010. After a tie-vote was settled by drawing lots in favor of the appellant, the contesting respondent filed an election petition before the Election Commission of Pakistan, which ordered a re-poll under Sections 8 and 9 of the Elections Act 2017. The appellant's writ petition challenging this order was dismissed by the Balochistan High Court on the ground of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 9(5) of the Elections Act 2017. The Supreme Court held that since the election was held under the Balochistan Local Government Act 2010, Section 37 of the said Act applied, which mandates that elections can only be called in question via an election petition before an Election Tribunal. The Election Commission's direct assumption of jurisdiction under the Elections Act 2017 was without lawful authority. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, remanded the writ petition for decision on merits, and directed that the results of the ongoing re-poll remain undeclared pending the High Court's final determination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of the Elections Act 2017 override the express provisions of the Balochistan Local Government Act 2010 in local government election disputes?
  • Can the Election Commission of Pakistan directly decide a local government election dispute under Section 9 of the Elections Act 2017 when the local government law mandates the constitution of an Election Tribunal?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an order of the Election Commission of Pakistan passed without jurisdiction, despite the existence of an appellate remedy under Section 9(5) of the Elections Act 2017?
  Read full judgment →
• Shujahat Hussain Kazmi vs Director General Health, Azad Government of The State of Jammu And Kashmir Muzaffarabad and 5 others2023 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 174 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →