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.

• Shuja-ul-Haq Malik vs The State etc.2023 LHC 27, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 311, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 438, 2024 YLR 745 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-09
  narcotic smugglingbenefit of doubtcriminal appealburden of proofappreciation of evidencehostile witnessacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged smuggling of heroin concealed in a cloth consignment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's knowledge of, or involvement in, the narcotics trafficking beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court found that the prosecution's evidence was fundamentally flawed, noting that the complainant and other prosecution witnesses admitted during cross-examination that the appellant was unaware of the presence of narcotics and had actively cooperated with the investigation. The Court held that the trial court erred by relying on mere perception rather than concrete evidence, failing to account for testimony that exculpated the accused. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to meet the requisite burden of proof. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution witnesses provide testimony favorable to the accused during cross-examination, such evidence must be considered by the court, and the failure to prove the accused's guilty knowledge or association necessitates acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court rely on evidence elicited during cross-examination that contradicts the prosecution's case even if the witness was not declared hostile?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the accused's knowledge of the presence of narcotics in a consignment entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution witnesses admit during cross-examination that the accused was unaware of the illicit nature of the consignment?
  Read full judgment →
• Shuja-ul-Haq Malik vs State etc.PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 311 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-09
  narcotic controlbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealconsignment narcoticshostile witnessacquittalreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant, Shuja-ul-Haq Malik, Chief Executive Officer of a logistic network, was convicted under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine, while being acquitted under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant knowingly associated, facilitated, or abetted in booking a cargo consignment containing narcotics or had knowledge of the concealed drugs. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the appellant's guilt, noting severe discrepancies and admissions by key prosecution witnesses—including the complainant and investigating officer—that the appellant was unaware of the narcotics and had cooperated with the investigation. The court laid down the principle that where material prosecution witnesses exonerate the accused during their testimonies and the prosecution fails to prove guilty knowledge or conscious possession, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt resulting in an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 without proof of conscious possession or knowledge of the narcotics?
  • Does the testimony of a complainant and investigating officer admitting the innocence or lack of knowledge of the accused warrant an acquittal?
  • What is the scope of the court's power under Section 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 regarding the cross-examination of witnesses called by a party?
  Read full judgment →
• Shuhada Forum, Balochistan through its Patron in Chief, Nawabzada Jamal Raisani, Quetta Cantt. And others vs Justice (R) Jawwad S. Khawaja and others2023 SCP 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-13
  Intra Court AppealMilitary CourtsTrial of CiviliansUltra ViresConstitutional PetitionStay OrderPakistan Army Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard Intra Court Appeals challenging an order that declared Section 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) and Section 59(4) of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 as ultra vires the Constitution, thereby prohibiting the trial of civilians by military courts. The appellants contended that the impugned order deviated from established precedents and that the Army Act provisions were protected under the Constitution. While the detailed reasons for the impugned order were pending, the Court addressed the appellants' request for interim relief. By a majority of five to one, the Court suspended the operation of the impugned order, allowing the legal status quo to persist temporarily. However, this suspension was explicitly conditioned upon the stipulation that no final judgment shall be passed against the 103 accused persons by the Military Courts until the next date of hearing. The Court directed that the matter be fixed for further proceedings in January 2024, emphasizing the necessity of reviewing the detailed reasons once released by the bench that initially decided the constitutional petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Can the operation of a court order declaring a statute ultra vires be suspended pending the release of detailed reasons?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to impose conditions, such as prohibiting final judgments, while granting a stay of an order striking down a law?
  • Are the provisions of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, regarding the trial of civilians, subject to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Shrimati Jaami and another vs The State2023 MLD 233 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-18
  extra-judicial confessioncircumstantial evidenceburden of proofcriminal appealinadmissible evidencemurder convictionreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for murder and destruction of evidence. The core legal question is whether a conviction can be sustained based solely on an extra-judicial confession made to police officers in the absence of corroborating evidence or an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable and acquitted the appellants. The ratio of the judgment is that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and cannot form the basis of a conviction. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in cases lacking ocular evidence, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime. Since the prosecution failed to provide such evidence or prove the alleged motive, the conviction could not stand. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the burden of proof lies heavily on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confession made to a police officer admissible as evidence against an accused person?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession when it is not corroborated by other reliable evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained in a case of circumstantial evidence if the chain of evidence is broken?
  • Does the failure to prove the motive of a crime affect the sustainability of a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Show Cause Notice Issued To Messrs Peshawar Electric Supply Company2023 CLD 429 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2022-12-13Read full judgment →
• Show Cause Notice Issued To Messrs Berger Paints Pakistan Ltd._ In the matter of vs Not2023 CLD 114 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2022-11-11Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Hussain vs Addl. District Judge, etc2023 LHC 2518 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-13Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Ali vs Shamas Hussain & others2023 IHC 422 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-12Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Ali vs I.G. Prisons and others2023 PCRLJ 169 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-08
  concurrent sentencessentencing discretionpenal interpretationconstitutional petitionhardshipcriminal procedureliberty of the subject
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, convicted in two separate criminal cases (FIR No. 900/2002 and FIR No. 506/2001), filed a constitutional petition seeking an order for his sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the discretion to direct that sentences awarded in separate trials run concurrently to mitigate hardship. The Court held that under Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, it maintains wide, unfettered discretion to order sentences from separate trials to run concurrently. Emphasizing the principle that penal statutes should be interpreted in favor of the liberty of the subject, the Court found that denying such relief would result in detestable hardship, given the petitioner had already served over twenty-four years of imprisonment. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the Court directed that the sentences in both cases run concurrently. This judgment reinforces the judiciary's authority to exercise equitable discretion in sentencing to prevent excessive, cumulative incarceration when circumstances warrant, prioritizing humanitarian considerations within the framework of criminal procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to order sentences awarded in separate trials to run concurrently?
  • What is the scope of judicial discretion under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding concurrent sentences?
  • Should penal provisions be interpreted in favor of the accused when multiple interpretations regarding sentencing are possible?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Ali vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Ministry2023 IHC 352, 2024 PLD Islamabad 135 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-02Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Yasin vs Mansoor Majeed Ayat2023 IHC 256 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-28Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Sohail vs Ex-officio Justice of Peace and others2023 LHC 6369 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-09Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Ishtiaq vs The State, etc2023 IHC 362 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-09-19
  murder convictiondeath sentence commutationmitigating circumstancesocular evidenceforensic evidenceretinitis pigmentosacriminal appealinterested witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Jail Appeal and a Murder Reference arising from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his uncle and house trespass. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt despite the appellant’s plea of false implication due to his medical condition (retinitis pigmentosa), and whether the death sentence was appropriate given the appellant's age and mental state. The Court held that the prosecution’s ocular account, corroborated by forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon to the crime scene, was reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 302(b) and Section 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. However, the Court found mitigating circumstances, specifically the appellant's young age, lack of criminal history, and the emotional distress caused by his degenerative eye condition and unrequited marriage proposal. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The judgment reaffirms that while ocular testimony from relatives is not inherently suspect, sentencing must balance retribution with the potential for reform, particularly where mental or emotional impairment exists.

  Questions settled

  • Does a blood relationship between eyewitnesses and the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment based on the accused's medical condition and emotional state?
  • Is the burden of proof on the accused to establish a plea of false implication when claiming a specific medical condition?
  • Does a minor discrepancy in the timeline of a post-mortem examination invalidate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Asghar Gujjar vs Commissioner Sargodha Division and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 415 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-16
  dying cadreconstitutional jurisdictionpolicy mattersjudicial reviewappointment under Rule 17-Aadministrative policycivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the denial of his appointment as a Computer Operator under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, following the declaration of such posts as a 'dying cadre' by the provincial government. The core legal questions were whether the government could declare specific posts as a dying cadre, thereby barring recruitment under Rule 17-A, and whether the court should interfere in such policy decisions. The Lahore High Court held that the government possesses the prerogative to create or abolish posts based on administrative exigencies and changing requirements. The court determined that declaring posts as a dying cadre is a policy matter, and judicial interference is only warranted if the policy is capricious, arbitrary, or unconstitutional. Finding the government's decision reasonable and in the public interest, the court upheld the denial of the appointment. The key principle laid down is that courts generally refrain from interfering in government policy matters regarding the creation or abolition of posts unless such policies are demonstrably arbitrary or violate constitutional requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government declare specific posts as a 'dying cadre' to bar future recruitment?
  • Does the court have the authority to interfere in government policy decisions regarding the creation or abolition of posts?
  • Is an appointment under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1974 permissible against a post declared as a dying cadre?
  Read full judgment →
• Shirazi Trading Company (Pvt.) Limited vs National Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine and others2023 IHC 240 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-21Read full judgment →
• Sheren Hussain and another vs Shahzad Hussain Shah and 2 others2023 PLJ AJ&K 67 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-12-19Read full judgment →
• Sheraz Khan vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 1604 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-10
  Criminal appealAcquittalOcular evidenceMedical evidenceDying declarationInterested witnessesReasonable doubtMaterial contradictions
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged the acquittal of respondents in a case involving murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the provided ocular and medical evidence. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to provide cogent, convincing evidence, noting significant discrepancies between the ocular account and medical reports, particularly regarding the number of injuries and the positioning of the parties. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that testimony from interested witnesses requires independent corroboration, which was absent here. Additionally, the Court ruled that a statement recorded by an investigating officer from an injured party weeks after the incident, without medical certification of the declarant's mental state, fails to qualify as a valid dying declaration. Consequently, the Court found the prosecution's case riddled with material contradictions and improvements, rendering the evidence unreliable and insufficient to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries create reasonable doubt?
  • Can a statement recorded by an investigating officer from an injured person weeks after the occurrence be admitted as a dying declaration?
  • Is the testimony of interested witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR, combined with discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative, undermine the credibility of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheraz Hakeem vs Agha Khan University & Others2023 SHC 56 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-30Read full judgment →
• Sheraz Ahmad, etc. vs State etc.2023 PLJ 575 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-09
  cyber crimehate speechsame transactionjoint trialelectronic crimesblasphemycriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which declined the petitioners' application seeking not to be charge-sheeted for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in addition to Section 11 of The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. The petitioners were facing trial for allegedly sharing banned material in a WhatsApp group, outraging religious feelings and promoting sectarian hatred. The core legal question was whether offences under Section 11 of The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 and offences under Sections 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, and 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from the same series of acts can be tried together. The court dismissed the petition, holding that where acts are interlinked and form part of the same transaction, the accused can be charged and tried together for all such offences in a single trial pursuant to Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to avoid conflicting decisions and separate trials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether offences falling under Section 11 of The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 and offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be tried together in the same trial?
  • Do acts constituting offences under both special cybercrime laws and general penal laws form part of the same transaction when they are interlinked and share common evidence?
  • Can an accused person be charged with multiple offences arising from a series of connected acts under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman through Jail Superintendent, Karachi vs The State2023 YLR 2606 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-07
  terrorismpolice encounterevasion of arrestappreciation of evidencepolice witnesscriminal appealSection 103 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant by an Anti-Terrorism Court for offences involving the death of a child and injuries to police personnel during an encounter. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s actions, specifically firing at police to evade arrest, constituted "terrorism" under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and whether the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court held that the incident lacked the specific object, intent, or design to create terror, as the appellant’s sole purpose was to avoid arrest. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant of the ATA charges while maintaining the convictions under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Sindh Arms Act. The judgment reaffirms that terrorism requires a distinct intent to create terror, rather than mere violence. Furthermore, the Court established that police testimony is reliable absent proof of enmity, minor contradictions do not undermine the prosecution's case, and non-compliance with Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is excusable given contemporary public apathy and fear of reprisals.

  Questions settled

  • Does firing at police personnel to evade arrest constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can the evidence of police officials be relied upon for conviction in the absence of proof of enmity?
  • Is non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does the fact that a bystander was terrorized during a violent act automatically classify the act as terrorism?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Shah and others vs Bahadur Sher and others2023 PHC 211 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-19Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Anti-Terrorism Court No. IV, Karachi Division and another2023 YLR 541 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-19
  extortionanti-terrorism actcriminal appealpolice encounterbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRillegal arms possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for extortion, assault on police, and illegal possession of arms. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and whether the acts constituted terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt regarding the non-terrorism offences, corroborated by recovery of extortion money, forensic evidence, and consistent witness testimony. However, the Court acquitted the appellant of charges under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, holding that the incident involved private extortion without the requisite intent, purpose, or design to create terror, citing the principle that acts of private gain do not automatically fall under terrorism statutes. The Court affirmed that a delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal when justified by fear of reprisals, and that minor contradictions in prosecution evidence do not invalidate a conviction where the overall chain of events is unbroken and credible. Consequently, the convictions for the Pakistan Penal Code and Sindh Arms Act offences were maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Does an act of private extortion automatically constitute an offence under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is a delay in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case when the complainant fears reprisals?
  • Can the evidence of police officers be relied upon in the absence of proven enmity?
  • Do minor contradictions in prosecution evidence necessitate the acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan vs Secretary, Establishment (Establishment Division), Cabinet2023 PLC (C.S) 802 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-03
  service lawupgradationpromotionlachesconstitutional petitionsuperannuationback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired employee of Pakistan Railways, filed a constitutional petition seeking a writ to upgrade his post of Stenographer to BS-16 with effect from 23.12.2011, along with subsequent promotion to BS-18. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to a second upgradation to BS-16 despite having already received an earlier upgradation to that scale in 2007 and having been subsequently promoted to BS-17 in 2018. The Peshawar High Court held that the petition was devoid of merit. The Court observed that the petitioner had already been granted upgradation to BS-16 in 2007, had received the corresponding pay and allowances, and was later promoted to BS-17 before his retirement in 2018. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition, filed in 2021 regarding events dating back to 2011, was barred by laches. The key principle laid down is that a public servant is not entitled to claim a second upgradation for the same post when they have already been granted the benefit of that upgradation and subsequent promotion, particularly when the claim is significantly delayed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a public servant entitled to a second upgradation to the same pay scale if they have already received the benefit of that upgradation previously?
  • Does a delay of several years in filing a service-related petition constitute laches?
  • Can a retired employee claim further upgradation and promotion for a post held prior to superannuation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Hassan Pervez vs The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore and another2023 PLC (C.S.) 1243 · Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 2021-12-10
  expunction of remarksPerformance Evaluation Reportadverse remarksadvisory remarkscivil service PERsubordinate judiciaryservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal was filed before the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal challenging the order dated 03.04.2019, whereby the appellant's representation seeking expunction of remarks in his Performance Evaluation Report (PER) for the period 01.01.2016 to 13.08.2016 was dismissed. The core legal question was whether remarks recorded as 'generally a late corner who likes to avoid duty' constituted advisory or adverse remarks, and whether unsubstantiated remarks could be sustained. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and expunged the disputed remarks. The Tribunal laid down the principle that the nature and essence of remarks, rather than their caption or label given by the reporting authority, determine whether they are advisory or adverse. Remarks reflecting defects in quality of work, conduct, or performance that affect an officer's reputation and career progression are adverse in character. The Tribunal further held that adverse remarks must be supported by direct evidence and prior formal counseling or warning on record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the determination of remarks as advisory or adverse depends on their actual nature and impact rather than the label given by the reporting officer?
  • Whether adverse remarks recorded in a Performance Evaluation Report can be sustained without supporting material or prior warnings on record?
  • Does an unconditional apology tendered for minor punctuality lapses justify recording general adverse remarks regarding an officer's conduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Afzal Khan vs Noor Islam and others2023 CLC 277 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-27Read full judgment →
• Sher Afghan Khan Zarkoon vs Government of Balochistan, Local2023 CLC 2063, 2024 PLJ Quetta 56 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-01Read full judgment →
• Shell Pakistan Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & OthersPTCL 2023 CL. 162, 2023 PCTLR 128, 2023 SHC 22 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-22Read full judgment →
• Shell Pakistan Limited through Legal Counsel and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance and others2023 PTD 607 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-22
  super taxvested rightsfiscal legislationintelligible differentiaretrospective taxationconstitutional equalityharmonious constructionincome tax
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and the first proviso to Division IIB of Part I of the First Schedule, introduced by the Finance Act, 2022. The core legal questions concerned whether Section 4C retrospectively vitiated vested rights regarding super tax exemptions granted under Section 4B for tax years 2020–2022, and whether the proviso imposing higher tax rates on specific business sectors was discriminatory. The Court held that Section 4C could not retrospectively override the protected vested rights established under Section 4B. To harmonize the conflicting provisions, the Court ruled that the levy under Section 4C is applicable only from the tax year 2023. Additionally, the Court declared the first proviso to Division IIB of Part I of the First Schedule ultra vires the Constitution, finding it discriminatory and devoid of intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object of classification. The judgment reaffirms that fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly in favor of the taxpayer, and legislative classification requires a rational basis to satisfy constitutional equality requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 retrospectively vitiate vested rights created under Section 4B of the same Ordinance?
  • Is the first proviso to Division IIB of Part I of the First Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 discriminatory and violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a court harmonize conflicting provisions of a statute to avoid declaring one of them unconstitutional?
  • Does an exemption from tax granted by a statute constitute a vested right that cannot be retrospectively withdrawn without express legislative intent?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed vs State and 3 others2023 PLJ Peshawar 121, 2023 P Cr. L J 1567 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-15
  discharge of accusedSection 169 CrPCconstitutional jurisdictioninsufficient evidencecriminal trialpolice reportwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a Judicial Magistrate's order discharging two respondents from a criminal case registered under Sections 489-F, 420, 506, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, the complainant, argued that the police and the Magistrate erred in discharging the respondents despite their initial inclusion in the investigation. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate acted within their jurisdiction under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in discharging the respondents based on the police's finding of insufficient evidence. The Court held that the impugned order was lawful and justified. It affirmed that while the police's opinion is not binding on the Court, the Magistrate has the authority to discharge an accused if the investigation reveals insufficient evidence or reasonable grounds to justify forwarding the accused for trial. The Court emphasized that it is unfair to subject an innocent person to the hardships of a criminal trial when no prima facie case exists, and therefore, the Magistrate's order was upheld as a valid exercise of judicial discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Judicial Magistrate have the authority to discharge an accused person based on a police report indicating insufficient evidence?
  • Is the opinion of an Investigating Officer regarding the innocence of an accused binding upon the Court?
  • Can a High Court interfere with a Magistrate's order of discharge under its constitutional jurisdiction if the order is based on a valid investigation report?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Sultan Ahmed vs Iftikharuiddin Paracha2023 SHC 1030, 2024 CLC 1177 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-22Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Siddique Ahmed vs Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board, Etc2023 LHC 5679, 2024 CLC 406 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-31Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Shan Ilahi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 6 others2023 PLD Lahore 359 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-31
  right to travelblacklistingpassport manualultra viresfundamental rightsfreedom of movementExit Control Listproclaimed offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional judgment arises from two writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the blacklisting of the petitioners by the executive authorities under Para 51 of the Passport and Visa Manual 2006. The central legal questions involved whether the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, whether Para 51 of the Manual possesses statutory authority, and whether the executive can place a citizen on a blacklist without express statutory power. The Lahore High Court held that international travel is an integral part of the fundamental rights to life and liberty under Articles 4 and 9, and freedom of movement under Article 15 of the Constitution. The Court declared Para 51 of the Manual ultra vires the Passports Act, 1974, holding that executive administrative guidelines cannot exceed primary legislation, which only provides for cancellation, impounding, or confiscation of passports under Section 8. Consequently, the petitioners' blacklisting was declared unlawful and set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right of a citizen to travel abroad a fundamental right protected under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Is Para 51 of the Passport and Visa Manual 2006 ultra vires the Passports Act, 1974?
  • Can administrative instructions or departmental manuals create powers to restrict citizen rights beyond primary legislation?
  • Can a citizen be placed on a passport blacklist merely for being a proclaimed offender or facing criminal allegations?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed vs SHO Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad & others2023 IHC 114, 2024 PCRLJ 113 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-08-30
  seizure of propertycase propertywrit jurisdictionalternate remedypolice powersintra court appealfundamental rightsabetment
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenged an order dismissing a writ petition regarding the seizure of the appellant's vehicles by police. The appellant was nominated for abetment in an FIR but was not present at the scene, and the vehicles were seized from his residence during a raid. The core legal question was whether police could seize property under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or as "case property" when the property was not involved in the offense and no attachment order under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 existed. The Court held that the seizure was illegal, noting that police powers cannot be used to pressure an accused to surrender. It clarified that "case property" must be related to the commission of an offense. Furthermore, the Court established that the availability of alternate remedies does not bar writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 when an act is performed without lawful authority or is arbitrary. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the return of the vehicles.

  Questions settled

  • Can police seize property under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if it was not used in the commission of an offense?
  • Does the availability of an alternate remedy absolutely bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • What are the essential legal requirements for property to be classified as 'case property'?
  • Can police seize property to pressure an accused to surrender in the absence of an attachment order under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Nadeem Rehmat & Another vs Sindh Building Control Authority &2023 SHC 982 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-27Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Iftikhar Ahmad and others vs Faiz Ahmad and others2023 SCMR 2158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-14
  Section 12(2) C.P.C.lis pendensspecific performancefraud upon the courtbona fide purchaserappellate proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals challenged the dismissal of applications filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding property purchased during the pendency of an appeal. The core legal question was whether the appellants could invoke Section 12(2) to challenge an appellate judgment based on alleged fraud, and whether the doctrine of lis pendens invalidated their claims. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellants failed to establish that any fraud or misrepresentation was played upon the Court, a mandatory prerequisite for relief under Section 12(2). The Court clarified that alleged fraud inter se between the seller and the purchasers does not satisfy the statutory requirement of fraud upon the Court. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that transfers of property made during the pendency of litigation are subject to the doctrine of lis pendens, binding the purchasers to the final outcome of the proceedings. Consequently, the appellate judgment remained intact, and the purchasers, having acquired the property during the litigation, could not claim independent rights to the property.

  Questions settled

  • Does fraud committed inter se between parties to a sale transaction constitute fraud upon the court under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Is a purchaser of property who acquires title during the pendency of an appeal bound by the final outcome of that litigation under the doctrine of lis pendens?
  • What are the essential requirements for maintaining an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Hafeez vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 583 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-27
  sit-inroad blockadefreedom of assemblyfundamental rightsmaintenance of public ordercivil administrationpolice duties
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three consolidated constitutional petitions stemming from widespread road blockades and sit-ins across Rawalpindi and surrounding areas following the Wazirabad attack on the Chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) during the 'Haqeeqi Long March'. The core legal question involved the extent of the fundamental right to assemble and protest versus the fundamental rights of citizens to freedom of movement, trade, and property, alongside the statutory duties of civil administration and law enforcement agencies to maintain public order. The Lahore High Court held that while peaceful assembly is a guaranteed fundamental right under Article 16 of the Constitution, it is subject to reasonable restrictions and cannot infringe upon the fundamental rights of others or paralyze public life. The Court found that local civil administration and police officials failed in their statutory duties and acted as silent spectators. The petitions were disposed of with directions to authorities to ensure compliance with the law and Supreme Court precedents, and the conduct of defaulting officials was referred for departmental inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the fundamental right to assemble and protest under Article 16 of the Constitution is absolute or subject to reasonable restrictions?
  • Do civil administration and police officers have a statutory duty under the Punjab Civil Administration Act 2017 and Police Order 2002 to prevent road blockades and maintain public order?
  • Can political protests and sit-ins be permitted to paralyze public life and infringe upon the fundamental rights of other citizens to movement and trade?
  • What are the legal consequences for administrative and police officers who fail to discharge their statutory duties during widespread public disturbances?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad Ali Nawaz, etc2023 LHC 2059 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-04Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Akram etc vs Returning Officer PP-126 Jhang-III etc2023 LHC 2156 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-14Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Iqbal Ghani & others vs Deputy Commissioner Rehabilitation District2023 PLJ AJ&K 84 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Sheikh Humayun Nazir vs The State and others2023 SCMR 2058 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-04-14
  intra-court appealnon-cognizable offenceinvestigation permissionrevisional jurisdictionmagisterial discretionlaw reforms ordinancecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order of a Judicial Magistrate refusing to grant permission under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to investigate a non-cognizable offense. The petitioner's constitutional petition and subsequent Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) against this refusal were dismissed by the Islamabad High Court. The core legal question was whether an ICA is maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in a constitutional petition concerning the refusal of a Magistrate to order an investigation into a non-cognizable offense, and whether such an order is amenable to revisional jurisdiction. The Court held that the Magistrate’s order refusing investigation under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a judicial function amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435-439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, an ICA against the High Court's order in such a matter is not maintainable due to the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972. The principle laid down is that a Magistrate acts as a court when exercising judicial discretion to order or refuse an investigation into non-cognizable offenses.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in a constitutional petition regarding the registration of an FIR or investigation of a non-cognizable offence?
  • Does a Magistrate act as a court when exercising the power to grant or refuse permission to investigate a non-cognizable offence under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an order of a Magistrate refusing to grant permission to investigate a non-cognizable offence amenable to revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Ameen-Ur-Rasheed vs Shaikh Mamon Ur Rasheed and 4 others2023 YLR 2683 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-04-11Read full judgment →
• Shehzad A. Siddiqui vs Finance Division through its Secretary and others2023 IHC 290 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-07-05Read full judgment →
• Shehryar Afridi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior & others2023 IHC 366 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-29Read full judgment →
• Shehri Citizens for a Better Environment & others vs Murad Ali Shah2023 SCP 395 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-21
  rehabilitation schemedispossessed personscompensationrental paymentsencumbrance-free plotpublic notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the implementation of a rehabilitation and compensation scheme for individuals dispossessed during the clearing of Gujjar Nallah, Orangi Nallah, and Mehmoodabad Nallah in Karachi. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the progress of rental payments and the rehabilitation of 6,932 affectees. Regarding rental payments, the Court noted substantial compliance, with cheques released to 6,471 affectees, leaving 461 uncollected due to untraceable whereabouts, blocked CNICs, or death. To expedite delivery, the Court directed the Commissioner's office to share the list of remaining affectees with the counsel for the affectees and to publish public notices in local Urdu and Sindhi newspapers. On the issue of rehabilitation, the Court considered two proposals: either releasing funds to the affectees for land purchase and construction based on market value and Pakistan Engineering Council standards, or allotting an encumbrance-free 80-square-yard plot in the Malir Development Authority along with construction costs. The Court directed the Chief Secretary, Mayor, and Commissioner of Karachi to decide on the most suitable option and submit a compliance report with a proper timeline within 15 days.

  Questions settled

  • What measures must the state administration take to locate and disburse compensation cheques to untraceable or deceased affectees of a public displacement drive?
  • What are the permissible options for the rehabilitation of dispossessed persons under a court-supervised compensation scheme?
  • How are construction costs calculated for the rehabilitation of dispossessed persons under the standards approved by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehri -Citizens for a Better Environment & others vs Murad Ali Shah2023 SCP 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-08-17
  contempt proceedingscompensation and rehabilitationGujjar Nallah affecteesrental supportSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose upon an application filed for initiating contempt proceedings against the Chief Minister of Sindh for non-compliance with previous orders of the Supreme Court regarding the compensation and rehabilitation of affectees dispossessed from Gujjar Nallah, Orangi Nallah, and Mehmoodabad Nallah. The core legal question concerned the enforcement of court-ordered directions for rental support and the formulation of a viable rehabilitation scheme for the displaced persons. Upon hearing the Chief Minister, Mayor Karachi, and other officials, the Court recorded a consensual mechanism for the immediate disbursement of pending rental support cheques in two tranches and noted two alternative proposals submitted by the Government of Sindh for permanent rehabilitation and land/construction cost allocation. The Court held that the contempt proceedings would remain pending and intact without prejudice while the agreed timelines and mechanisms for payment and rehabilitation proposals were implemented, dispensing with the personal appearance of the Chief Minister subject to due compliance and filing of an interim compliance report.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contempt proceedings can be kept pending while parties negotiate a consensual mechanism for implementing previous court orders?
  • Can the personal appearance of a Chief Executive be dispensed with upon assurance of compliance and proper allocation of funds for court-ordered compensation?
  • What is the prescribed mechanism and timeline for the disbursement of rental support cheques to affectees dispossessed from urban nallahs?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheer Muhammad vs The State and another2023 YLR 2497 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-10
  post-arrest bailjuvenile offenderexplosive substancesanti-terrorismdelayed trialstatutory delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the petitioner Sheer Muhammad seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 07/23 registered under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 at Police Station CTD, Rawalpindi. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, alleged to be found in possession of explosive substances and claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the incident, is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail, particularly given the delay in the submission of the challan and the absence of prior criminal antecedents. The Court held that the petitioner, being a juvenile under seventeen years of age at the time of the alleged offense and facing prolonged incarceration without submission of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or any likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial, made out a case for bail. The key principle laid down is that a juvenile accused cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period as a measure of advance punishment, and youth coupled with delayed trial proceedings constitutes valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a juvenile accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the challan has not been submitted within a reasonable time?
  • Can prolonged incarceration without the conclusion of trial be treated as an advance punishment for an accused?
  • Whether possession of explosive substances under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 warrants denial of bail in the case of a juvenile with no prior criminal antecedents?
  Read full judgment →
• Shazam Ali vs StatePLJ 2023 Cr.C. 270, 2024 YLR 628 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-09
  criminal appealmurder referenceqatl-e-amdrobberyres gestaemitigating circumstancesdeath sentence conversionimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Shazam Ali, under Section 302(b) and Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to death for the qatl-e-amd of the deceased during a car robbery, along with imprisonment and compensation. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's circumstantial and last-seen evidence, the admissibility of spontaneous statements made to rescue officials under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and the presence of mitigating circumstances regarding the quantum of sentence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's presence and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, relying on the res gestae doctrine under Article 19-A of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and emergency response forms documenting the appellant's immediate statements. However, finding doubts surrounding the recovery of the weapon and noting that mitigating circumstances exist, the court dismissed the appeal on merits regarding conviction but converted the death sentence into imprisonment for life, answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether statements made spontaneously to rescue officials immediately after an incident are admissible under the doctrine of res gestae pursuant to Article 19-A of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can doubtful or suspicious recovery of a weapon of offense serve as a mitigating circumstance to warrant the conversion of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 should be drawn when a party fails to summon call records from a rescue service?
  • Whether an accused admitting presence at the scene and sustaining injuries bears the onus to satisfactorily explain their presence and involvement?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Iqbal vs Muhammad Shumail Akram2023 CLC 193 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-19Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through its2023 SCP 77 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-03
  pension enhancementvoluntary retirement schemeFederal Service Tribunalleave to appealjudicial honorificsconstitutional nomenclaturecourt decorumappellate practice
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition seeking leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's miscellaneous application assailing the dismissal of a review petition regarding enhanced pension claims under a Voluntary Retirement/Separation Scheme. The Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, observing that the issues regarding limitation and pension entitlement had already been settled by precedent. Additionally, the Court addressed the widespread practice among lawyers and judges of applying honorifics and prefixes such as 'Honourable', 'Hon'ble', 'August', or 'Apex' to the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Court held that such prefixes should not be used for inanimate institutions, as the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan designates them simply as 'Supreme Court' and 'High Courts' without honorifics. The Court ruled that constitutional nomenclature should be adhered to, noting that honorifics like 'honourable' or 'learned' appropriately describe judges personally rather than court institutions, and cautioned against excessive or obsequious usage.

  Questions settled

  • Is it linguistically and constitutionally appropriate to attach honorifics such as 'Honourable', 'August Court', or 'Apex Court' to court institutions rather than individual judges?
  • Should legal practitioners and judges adhere strictly to the designations provided in the Constitution of Pakistan when referring to courts?
  • Can enhanced pension benefits be claimed under a voluntary retirement scheme when the underlying limitation and entitlement issues have already been definitively settled by Supreme Court precedent?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Chairman and another2023 PLD Supreme Court 260, 2023 PLJ SC 476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-02
  Voluntary Retirement Schemepension enhancementlimitationhonorificscourt nomenclaturelanguage of ConstitutionFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose out of an order of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing a miscellaneous application that challenged the dismissal of a review petition regarding pension enhancement under a Voluntary Retirement/Separation Scheme. The petitioner sought an increase in pension corresponding to salary hikes granted to serving employees of the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan. Finding that the issues regarding limitation and pension entitlement had already been authoritatively settled by prior decisions of the Supreme Court, the Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. Furthermore, the Court addressed the prevalent practice among lawyers and judges of using honorifics such as 'Honourable', 'August', or 'Apex' when referring to courts. The Court emphasized that constitutional institutions should be referred to using the precise language of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which does not use such prefixes for courts, noting that 'honourable' applies properly as a courtesy title for individuals rather than inanimate institutions.

  Questions settled

  • Is a retired employee who opted for a voluntary retirement scheme entitled to enhanced pension benefits when serving officers' salaries are subsequently increased?
  • Should honorific prefixes such as 'Honourable', 'August', or 'Apex' be used when referring to constitutional courts in judicial proceedings and pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2023 PLC (C.S.) 65 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-18
  writ petitionpublic service commissionservice regulationseligibility criteriaextra markspractical experienceage seniority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Peshawar High Court seeking appointment as an Assistant Information Officer (BS-16) in the Information and Public Relations Department in place of the private respondent, claiming entitlement to extra marks on the basis of higher qualifications and practical experience. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to extra marks for higher qualification and whether his prior experience met the prescribed criteria. The court held that the petitioner's higher qualification (M.A Journalism and Mass Communication) was correctly utilized to confer eligibility to apply since he lacked the prescribed undergraduate subjects or regular full-time paid experience, and that he was not entitled to additional extra marks for the same qualification. Furthermore, upon a tie in marks, the private respondent was rightly preferred being older in age pursuant to the applicable service regulations. The court dismissed the petition, laying down that higher qualification used to establish eligibility cannot be simultaneously double-counted for extra marks, and that practical experience must strictly conform to the definition of a regular full-time paid job acquired after the prescribed qualification.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate claim extra marks for a higher qualification that was already utilized to confer eligibility for a public post?
  • What constitutes valid practical experience under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations 2017?
  • How is a tie in marks between candidates resolved under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations 2017?
  Read full judgment →
• Shariq Builders and Property /Advisors vs Dr. Muhammad Faisal Murad etc.2023 LHC 5203, 2024 MLD 32 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-19Read full judgment →
• Sharif Ullah Khan vs Pakistan International Airlines Limited through Chairman and 2 others2023 CLC 372 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-10Read full judgment →
• Sharif Ullah alias Sharpy vs The State2023 PHC 406 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-18Read full judgment →
• Sharif Polani, Sohail Polani vs Site and Others, Site and Others2023 SHC 1144 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-13Read full judgment →
• Sharafat Ali vs The State etc2023 LHC 4041, 2024 YLR 1339, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 1070 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-08
  pre-arrest bailItlaf-i-sa lahiyyat-i-udwPakistan Penal Codebodily hurtArshTa'zircriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of causing hurt, specifically the breaking of a tooth, under sections 337-U and 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the breaking of a tooth constitutes Itlaf-i-sa lahiyyat-i-udw (impairment of an organ) and whether such an offence is punishable solely by Arsh, thereby rendering it bailable. The Court held that teeth are ectodermal organs, and their destruction constitutes Itlaf-i-sa lahiyyat-i-udw. Consequently, the offence is punishable under section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 with Qisas, or in the alternative, Arsh and imprisonment as Ta'zir, refuting the petitioner's claim that the offence is non-imprisonable. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief requiring proof of mala fide and sufficient grounds under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Finding sufficient incriminating evidence and no evidence of mala fide, the Court dismissed the bail application.

  Questions settled

  • Does the breaking of a tooth constitute Itlaf-i-sa lahiyyat-i-udw under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the offence of causing Itlaf-i-sa lahiyyat-i-udw punishable only by Arsh?
  • What are the essential requirements for the grant of pre-arrest bail in Pakistan?
  • Are teeth considered organs within the definition of hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Shandana Gulzar Khan vs Mr. Sikandar Sultan Raja, Chief Election2023 IHC 76 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-17
  criminal original petitioncontempt proceedingswrit petitioninfructuous petitionIslamabad High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal original petition arising out of a main writ petition titled Shandana Gulzar Khan Vs. Election Commission of Pakistan and others. The core legal question concerned whether the contempt proceedings or auxiliary criminal original petition should survive once the principal writ matter has been adjudicated upon. The court decided and held that since the main writ petition was allowed vide a judgment of even date, the instant criminal original petition had become infructuous and was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that ancillary or auxiliary proceedings such as criminal original petitions for contempt become infructuous and merit dismissal when the underlying main writ petition is finally decided.

  Questions settled

  • What is the effect on a criminal original petition when the main writ petition from which it arises is allowed?
  • Can a criminal original petition be dismissed as infructuous upon the adjudication of the principal writ matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Shandana Gulzar Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 82, 2024 PLD Islamabad 28 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-17Read full judgment →
• Shan son of Sohail William vs Roshan and others2023 SHC 1150 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-12Read full judgment →
• Shan Muhammad alias Shany vs Said Mashal2023 PSC 126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-15
  pre-emption suitTalb-i-Ishhadnotice of demandmutationplaint omissioncivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent against the appellant regarding a sale effected through a mutation. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, but the appellate court set it aside and dismissed the suit. Upon civil revision, the High Court restored the trial court's judgment, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal questions involved whether the failure to mention the exact date of issuance of the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad in the plaint is fatal to the pre-emption suit, and whether physical possession was delivered prior to the attestation of mutation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that mere non-mentioning of the date of the notice in the plaint, where the notice itself was duly tendered in evidence and the objection was never raised in the written statement or earlier proceedings, is not fatal and does not warrant non-suiting the pre-emptor. The Court laid down that a party cannot be permitted to raise a new factual plea not pleaded in the written statement, and that substantial compliance with statutory requirements supported by un-rebutted evidence is sufficient.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to mention the date of issuance of the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad in the plaint is fatal to a pre-emption suit?
  • Can a party raise a new factual plea regarding limitation and notice before the Supreme Court without having pleaded it in the written statement or earlier fora?
  • Does mere oral assertion of delivery of physical possession prior to the attestation of mutation suffice to prove limitation in a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Bibi, etc vs Riasat Ali, etc2023 SCP 236, 2023 PLD Supreme Court 643, 2023 PLJ SC 600 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-25
  civil revisionadditional evidencerevisional jurisdictionremand of caseconcurrent findingsOrder XLI Rule 27 CPCSection 115 CPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil revision petition challenging a High Court order that allowed an application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and remanded the case to the trial court, thereby setting aside concurrent findings of the lower courts. The core legal question is whether the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was justified in permitting additional evidence and remanding the matter. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was improper. The Court affirmed that while revisional powers may exceptionally allow for additional evidence to rectify jurisdictional errors or material irregularities, such power is not intended to fill lacunas, allow new pleas, or assist indolent litigants. The Court emphasized that the power to admit additional evidence must be exercised cautiously and sparingly, and only when the evidence could not have been produced earlier or is necessary to prevent grave injustice. Finding the respondents' application flimsy and an attempt at a fishing inquiry, the Court set aside the High Court's order, restoring the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 allow the production of additional evidence?
  • What are the parameters for the exercise of revisional powers by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is the power to allow additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 intended to fill lacunas or allow new pleas in a case?
  • Under what exceptional circumstances may a revisional court permit the recording of additional evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Ali vs Secretary Govt of Sindh & others2023 SHC 504 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-15Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Alam vs Ghazanfarullah Khan2023 PLJ Peshawar 55 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
• Shamsa Hameed etc vs Additional District Judge etc2023 LHC 5982 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-17Read full judgment →
• Shams-Ud-Din and another vs Muhammad Ali and others2023 YLR 441 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-07-08Read full judgment →
• Shamim Ismail, etc. vs Addl. District Judge, etc.2023 LHC 5329 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-02Read full judgment →
• Shamim Akhtar Advocate vs Shahab Khan & another2023 SHC 584 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-19Read full judgment →
• Shamim Ahmed and another vs Syed Mousa Raza Mashadi and 2 others2023 MLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-05Read full judgment →
• Shamas-ur-Rehman vs Mst. Nazeer Gul and 2 others2023 MLD 720 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-19
  acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencetheftappraisal of evidencebenefit of doubtdelayed FIRprevious animosity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal arises from a judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate Malir, Karachi, whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under sections 380 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The complainant alleged that his bag containing cash, documents, and passports was stolen outside a court room. The core legal question concerns the propriety of interfering with an acquittal judgment that carries a double presumption of innocence. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an acquittal judgment will not be interfered with unless it is perverse, arbitrary, capricious, or suffers from gross misreading or non-reading of evidence resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The court noted significant delays in lodging the FIR, admitted prior animosity and civil litigation between the parties, the absence of independent witnesses, and the failure to collect crucial CCTV evidence. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts maintain a very narrow scope of interference against acquittals, requiring the prosecution to prove that the trial court's findings were palpably erroneous and resulted in grave injustice.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of interference by a High Court in an appeal against an acquittal judgment?
  • Does an acquittal by a court of competent jurisdiction attach a double presumption of innocence to the accused?
  • What is the legal effect of a delayed FIR coupled with previous hostility and lack of independent corroboration in a criminal trial?
  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with a trial court's factual conclusions based on the mere possibility of a different view upon re-appraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shal Badshah vs Shabir Rehman2023 PHC 193 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-02Read full judgment →
• Shakirullah vs The State and another2023 MLD 319 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-08
  superdarirelease of vehicleownership of motor vehicleregistered ownercriminal revisionreturn file
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed against the order of the Sessions Judge Mastung, whereby an application under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. for the release of a coach on superdari was rejected. The core legal question was whether a person holding only the original return file, without having the vehicle registered in their name, qualifies as an owner entitled to the custody of the vehicle under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Balochistan High Court held that mere possession of a return file or open transfer document does not constitute ownership under the law, and that an applicant seeking superdari must be the registered owner or duly transferred owner pursuant to the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 at the relevant time. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that vehicles can only be released on superdari to their lawful registered owners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person holding only the original return file can be considered the owner of a motor vehicle for the purpose of superdari?
  • Is a transferee required to have the motor vehicle registered in their name within thirty days under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965?
  • Can a vehicle be released on superdari to someone other than its registered or lawful owner?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakil-Ur-Rehman vs StatePLJ 2023 Cr.C. 791 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-20
  narcotic substancesforensic reporttest protocolsdeath sentencebenefit of doubtcontrol of narcotic substances actgovernment analyst
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals and a capital sentence reference arising from a judgment of the Special Court CNS, Lahore, convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to death with asset forfeiture for the alleged transportation of 40.800 kilograms of charas. The core legal question concerns the evidentiary value and legal requirement of a forensic report under Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, and whether a report lacking details of test protocols is conclusive. The court held that a forensic report failing to provide the full test protocols is inconclusive, unreliable, and fails to meet the evidentiary presumption under Section 36(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The key principle laid down is that the harsher the sentence, the stricter the standard of proof required, and mandatory procedural requirements regarding forensic analysis cannot be bypassed, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt when the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a forensic report that fails to specify the full test protocols applied is inconclusive and insufficient to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Do authoritative judgments of the Supreme Court interpreting existing provisions of law have retrospective effect?
  • What is the standard of proof required in cases carrying stringent or capital punishments under narcotics legislation?
  • Whether non-compliance with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, vitiates the evidentiary presumption attached to a Government Analyst report under Section 36(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Qadir through Attorney vs Mst. Shumaila Umair2023 MLD 20 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-26Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed Kasana, Abdu Hameed & others, Muhammad Aslam2023 SHC 230, 2024 PTD 1 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-28Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed and 3 others vs The State through A.N.F2023 MLD 1507 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-22
  narcotics possessionchain of custodyrepresentative samplesCNS Actofficial witnesseschemical examiner reportcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court-II (CNS), Karachi, whereby the appellants were convicted under sections 6 and 9(c) read with sections 14 and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to life imprisonment for the possession and transportation of a large quantity of charas. The core legal questions involved the reliability of police and official witnesses acting as mashirs, the integrity of the chain of custody of the narcotics, the legality of drawing representative samples from each independent unit of the recovered contraband, and the evaluation of the defence plea of false implication. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring ocular and documentary evidence, supported by positive chemical examiner reports and maintained safe custody of the case property. The court laid down that testing representative samples drawn from every physically separate and independent unit of a narcotic drug satisfies the legal requirements of analysis, and that procedural technicalities or the absence of private mashirs under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898—excluded by section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—do not vitiate a conviction otherwise firmly established by reliable official testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials and investigating officers can be relied upon for conviction in narcotics cases without independent private mashirs?
  • Does the drawing of representative samples from every physically separate and independent unit of recovered narcotics satisfy the legal requirement of chemical analysis?
  • Whether the non-production of the entire bulk of destroyed narcotics before the trial court prejudices the prosecution case when proper representative samples and destruction certificates are proven?
  • Can a police officer legally investigate a criminal case in which he acted as the complainant and witness to the recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad vs The State2023 MLD 2047 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-06
  narcotics traffickingbenefit of doubtcriminal appealpolice credibilitydaily diarysafe custody of case propertyadverse inference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under sections 9(c), 14, and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession and trafficking of narcotics. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the compromised credibility of the complainant/investigation officer and the absence of independent corroborative evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with significant doubts, including the failure to produce daily diaries to verify police movement, the lack of independent witnesses despite the proximity of a police check post, and the failure to prove the safe custody of the recovered contraband through the production of relevant registers. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that where the primary witness has a dubious record involving corruption, independent corroboration is mandatory. The Court reaffirmed the principle that any doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce police daily diaries regarding the departure and arrival of the raiding party create a fatal doubt in a narcotics case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a police official who has been dismissed from service for corruption?
  • Does the failure to produce Register 19 and Register 21 to prove the safe custody of recovered contraband entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Is an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 applicable when the prosecution abandons a material witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaista Jamil vs Daraz and another2023 LHC 4659, 2024 CLC 1926, 2024 PCRLJ 1987 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-23
  consumer protectionfaulty servicerejection of plaintconsumer court jurisdictioncivil and criminal jurisdictioncode of civil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The Appellant filed a claim for damages under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 against Daraz alleging faulty service after falling victim to an online scam involving a cell phone purchase. The District Consumer Court, Multan, rejected the claim under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the ensuing appeal before the Lahore High Court, the core legal question concerned the maintainability of the appeal and the extent to which the Code of Civil Procedure applies to Consumer Court proceedings. The High Court held that proceedings under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 are predominantly civil in nature, except where statutory offences or punitive sanctions are invoked under specific provisions, and that the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply stricto sensu to Consumer Court proceedings except to the limited extent provided in section 30(3), though equitable principles may be adopted. Since the impugned order arose from the Consumer Court's civil jurisdiction, a criminal appeal was held to be incompetent, and the office objection was sustained, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • What is the true nature of proceedings and penalties under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005?
  • Do the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 strictly apply to proceedings before a Consumer Court?
  • Whether an appeal against an order passed by a Consumer Court in its civil jurisdiction is maintainable as a criminal appeal?
  • Can a Consumer Court invoke Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject a consumer claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Shair Baz @ K2 S/O Muhammad Ilyas vs The State2023 SHC 572 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-18Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Shahid Umar vs The State2023 PCRLJ 795 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-27
  accountability appealcriminal breach of trustcivil disputepublic at largeNational Accountability Ordinancecheatingjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal accountability appeal challenged a conviction by an Accountability Court for embezzlement and criminal breach of trust regarding a failed commercial transaction. The core legal question was whether a private commercial dispute between two contracting parties, lacking any involvement of the "public at large," falls within the jurisdiction of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, and whether the prosecution's evidence sufficiently established criminal intent. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence. The Court held that the transaction was purely a civil dispute arising from a breach of contract, not a criminal offence. The prosecution failed to demonstrate that the alleged offence affected the "public at large," a prerequisite for invoking the relevant provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. Furthermore, the evidence presented was hearsay and insufficient to sustain a criminal conviction. The Court reaffirmed that private commercial disputes cannot be converted into criminal accountability cases absent evidence of corruption affecting the public at large, and that cheating and criminal breach of trust are distinct offences that cannot be simultaneously alleged without specific proof.

  Questions settled

  • Does a private commercial dispute between two contracting parties constitute an offence against the 'public at large' under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Can a conviction for criminal breach of trust be sustained under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 when the primary offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is not established?
  • Are the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust distinct offences that cannot be alleged simultaneously?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Khalid Safdar and 4 others vs Ali Hussain and another2023 PLD Sindh 405 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-29Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Imran and others vs The State and others2023 MLD 1603 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-28
  narcotics possessionpolice witness reliabilitysafe custody of contrabandControl of Narcotic Substances Actcurable irregularitycriminal appealSection 103 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the possession of substantial quantities of narcotics. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of police-only testimony, the mandatory nature of procedural provisions under the Act, the impact of typographical errors in the trial judgment, and the legal effect of an unsigned plea. The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It affirmed that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony is reliable absent evidence of bias, and that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded in narcotics cases by Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. Furthermore, the Court established that Sections 21 and 22 of the Act are directory rather than mandatory, and that the failure to obtain a signature on the accused's plea is a curable irregularity under Section 535 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, provided no prejudice is caused.

  Questions settled

  • Are police officials competent witnesses in narcotics cases in the absence of independent recovery witnesses?
  • Are the provisions of Sections 21 and 22 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 mandatory or directory?
  • Does the failure to obtain the signature of an accused on their plea under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
  • Is Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Ghulam Murtaza Adv vs The State2023 SHC 890 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-13
  pre-arrest bailattempt to murdermala fideproperty disputeprinciple of consistencyunexplained delay in FIRcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by an advocate accused in an FIR registered under Sections 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a property dispute between the applicant and the complainant, who are brothers. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail despite the offense falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to relief, confirming the interim bail. The ratio rests on the findings that the FIR was delayed by ten days without justification, the applicant had no active role in the alleged firing, and the prosecution failed to establish sufficient grounds connecting the applicant to the crime. The Court laid down the principle that while pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief, courts must adopt a broader interpretation of bail law, considering both the element of mala fides and the merits of the case, especially when the prosecution's evidence is weak or the investigation standard is deficient.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of consistency apply to pre-arrest bail when the role ascribed to the accused is general?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted in an offense falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR a valid ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Should courts consider the merits of the case in addition to mala fides when adjudicating pre-arrest bail applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzeb vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1720 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-09
  narcoticssafe custody of case propertychain of custodychemical examiner reporttest protocolsbenefit of doubtcontradictions in testimonyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecution's evidence regarding safe custody and transmission of the contraband, the compliance with mandatory rules for chemical analysis reports, and material contradictions in witness testimonies. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish an unbroken chain of safe custody of the recovered narcotics and sample parcels, that the chemical examiner's report lacked mandatory test protocols and protocols compliance, and that glaring contradictions in the testimonies of police witnesses rendered the case doubtful. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, laying down the principle that the failure to prove safe custody of case property and non-compliance with statutory procedures for chemical analysis vitiates the conviction, and that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotic samples from the spot to the chemical laboratory vitiates the trial and renders the chemical report unreliable?
  • Does a chemical examiner's report lacking specific test protocols and detailed results qualify as a valid report under Section 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can material contradictions regarding the time of preparation of recovery memos and the place of weighing contraband be treated as minor discrepancies?
  • What is the legal effect of giving up a material witness who transported the complaint to the police station for registration of the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzaib Khan S/O Shah Jahan vs The State2023 SHC 536 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-10Read full judgment →
• Shahzad vs The State and another2023 SCMR 679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-06
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyprohibitory clausecyber crimeelectronic crimes
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking leave to appeal against the order of the Islamabad High Court, which declined post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question involves the entitlement of the accused to post-arrest bail on the grounds of consistency, given that a co-accused attributed with the ownership of the SIM used in the alleged crime was already granted bail, and considering that the offences fall outside the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the petitioner is entitled to bail under the rule of consistency and because offences not falling within the prohibitory clause warrant bail as a rule and refusal as an exception. The key principle laid down is that the rule of consistency applies when co-accused assigned similar roles or connected roles are granted bail, and that bail should not be withheld in non-prohibitory offences without exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the rule of consistency when a co-accused has already been granted bail?
  • Does the grant of bail become a rule and refusal an exception for offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad vs State and anotherPLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-06
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencynon-prohibitory offenceselectronic crimescriminal appealbail concession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged an order of the Islamabad High Court denying post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case involving the transmission of objectionable photographs and videos. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case and the principle of consistency. The Supreme Court observed that while the petitioner was found in possession of the mobile phone, the SIM card used for the alleged transmission belonged to a co-accused who had already been granted bail. Applying the rule of consistency, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the same concession. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, making the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail, emphasizing that bail should generally be granted in non-prohibitory offences absent exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused has already been granted bail in the same case?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the lack of a previous criminal record influence the grant of post-arrest bail in non-prohibitory offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Sher Ali vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Commerce and Textile, Islamabad and 2 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 269 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-11
  constitutional jurisdictionmaster and servantservice ruleswrit petitionmaintainabilitystatutory rulesemployment dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employees of the National Insurance Company Limited (NICL), challenged their dismissal orders through constitutional petitions. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to entertain service-related disputes involving employees of a government-owned company that lacks statutory service rules. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding them not maintainable. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court affirmed that where an entity, even if government-owned, lacks statutory rules of service, the relationship between the employer and employee is governed by the principle of 'master and servant.' Consequently, constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is not available for enforcing service terms in such non-statutory employment contexts. The Court clarified that mere government shareholding does not elevate a company's internal regulations to statutory status, nor does it automatically subject the entity to writ jurisdiction. The petitioners were granted liberty to pursue alternative legal remedies available under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a government-owned company that lacks statutory rules of service?
  • Does the principle of 'master and servant' apply to employees of a government-owned company in the absence of statutory service rules?
  • Does government shareholding in a company automatically render its internal employment regulations statutory in nature?
  • Can constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 be invoked to challenge dismissal from service in a non-statutory employment relationship?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Kiyani vs The State etc2023 PHC 510 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-22
  capital punishmentconfessional statementretracted confessionanti-terrorismbenefit of the doubtforensic science laboratory reportcriminal conspiracyproscribed organizationchain of custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentences awarded by the Anti-Terrorism Court to the appellants for the qatl-e-amd of the deceased in pursuance of sectarian terrorism, alongside charges under the Anti-Terrorism Act and arms laws. The core legal questions revolved around the evidentiary value and voluntariness of delayed police and judicial confessions, the safety and transmission of crime empties linked through forensic analysis, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence regarding criminal conspiracy and membership of a proscribed organization. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to severe flaws including coerced and unverified confessional statements, unsealed crime empties with broken chain of custody, and insufficient direct or corroborative evidence. The court established that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, consequently setting aside the convictions, acquitting the appellants, and answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a confessional statement recorded by a police officer under Section 21-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is admissible without independent corroborative evidence connecting the accused to the crime?
  • Does an undue delay in recording a judicial or police confession vitiate its voluntariness and render it inadmissible for sustaining a capital conviction?
  • Is the positive matching report of crime empties with a recovered weapon sufficient to maintain a conviction when the chain of custody and proper sealing of the empties at the spot are not established?
  • Can a conviction for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 be sustained solely on the basis of retracted confessions and unsubstantiated circumstantial data?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Khan and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1250 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-30
  narcotic controlchain of custodysafe transmissionconscious possessioncriminal appealacquittalcontradictions in evidencechemical analyst report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged recovery of 170 kilograms of Charas and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the establishment of safe custody and transmission of the recovered contraband, conscious possession, and discrepancies in prosecution evidence including chemical analysis reports. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the safe custody and unbroken chain of custody of the recovered narcotic substance, and failed to establish conscious possession or properly attribute roles to the appellants. The court established that lapses in the chain of custody and discrepancies between the alleged recovered substance and the chemical analyst report vitiate the conviction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure of the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of custody and safe transmission of a recovered narcotic sample vitiates the conviction?
  • Does a discrepancy between the recovered substance and the chemical analyst report create a reasonable doubt entitling the accused to acquittal?
  • Can the liability of conscious possession be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish specific roles or ownership of the vehicle used in transportation?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions among prosecution witnesses regarding the custody of recovered contraband?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahray Khan (Deceased) through LRs. and others vs Qadir Bakhsh2023 SCMR 201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-17
  life estatelimited owneralienation of propertyinheritanceconcurrent findingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding concurrent findings of lower courts dismissing the petitioners' civil revision. The core legal question revolved around whether a limited owner widow could validly alienate agricultural land to her relatives to pay off her deceased husband's alleged loan, and the proper distribution of inheritance among legal heirs. The Supreme Court held that the widow, holding a life estate without a right of alienation, failed to prove the specific particulars and amounts of the alleged loan, rendering the purported transfer invalid. The Court affirmed that upon the cessation of limited ownership under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, the estate rightly devolved upon the primary legal heirs of the deceased, excluding collateral claimants. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless they are shown to be perverse, based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, or suffering from a legal defect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a limited owner widow can validly alienate property to pay off a deceased husband's debt without proving the specific particulars and amounts of the loan?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • How does the promulgation of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 affect a pre-existing limited estate?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz and 36 others vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary2023 PLC (C.S.) 447 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-22
  regularization of contract employeesconstitutional petitionpublic appointmentcompetitive processservice jurisprudencemerit-based recruitmentSindh government
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, were brought by contract employees of the Sindh government seeking regularization of their services. The petitioners, who had been appointed to various departments including LARMIS and the Livestock and Fisheries Department, contended that they were initially recruited through a competitive process and thus held a legitimate expectation of regularization. The core legal question was whether these employees, having already cleared a competitive selection process, could be compelled to undergo a fresh recruitment process to obtain regular status. The Court held that since the petitioners’ initial appointments were based on a fair and competitive process, requiring them to re-apply was unnecessary. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions, directing the regularization of the petitioners. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that public appointments must be made strictly through competitive processes on merit, deprecating the practice of filling permanent posts on a contract or ad-hoc basis, and mandated that future recruitment for BPS-1 to BPS-15 must be on a regular basis, except for time-bound projects.

  Questions settled

  • Are contract employees who were initially appointed through a competitive process entitled to regularization without undergoing a fresh recruitment process?
  • Does the practice of appointing employees on a contract basis for permanent posts violate service jurisprudence?
  • Can the government compel employees who have already passed a competitive examination to re-apply for their own positions?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz 26 others vs Muhammad Mohmand 22 others2023 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 34 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-11-08Read full judgment →
• Shahin Shah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Irrigation Department, Peshawar and others2023 PLJ SC 155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  arbitration awardrule of courtarbitrator misconductsubstantial compliancecomposite orderlimitation periodstay of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that set aside a Trial Court's decree making an arbitration award a Rule of Court. The core legal questions concern the appealability of a composite order making an award a Rule of Court, whether arbitrators committed misconduct by exceeding time limits, the necessity of formal notice under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and the validity of proceedings absent a formal Section 34 stay order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its jurisdiction and interpretation. It ruled that a composite order dismissing objections and making an award a Rule of Court is not appealable unless the decree is in excess of or contrary to the award, which was not the case here. The Court affirmed that time extensions granted by the Trial Court with party consent are valid, and the doctrine of substantial compliance applies to Section 14 notice requirements when parties are aware of proceedings. The Court emphasized that arbitration agreements must be honored, and procedural technicalities cannot be used to defeat the finality of an award after voluntary participation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a composite order of a Trial Court dismissing objections and making an arbitration award a Rule of Court appealable under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Does the failure of arbitrators to file an award within the initial four-month period constitute legal misconduct if extensions were granted by the Court?
  • Can the requirement of formal notice under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 be satisfied by the doctrine of substantial compliance if the parties were present in Court?
  • Does the absence of a formal stay order under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 render arbitration proceedings illegal if the parties voluntarily participated in them?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahida Perveen vs Province of Punjab through District Officer Revenue, District Mandi Baha-ud-Din and others2023 MLD 1445 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
• Shahid Wilayat son of Wilayat Masih, Kashif Wilayat son of Wilayat Masih2023 SHC 1098 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shahid Wazeer vs Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh and 4 others2023 CLC 2110 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-06Read full judgment →
• Shahid Rasool vs Government Of The Punjab through Secretary Home2023 YLR 333 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-25
  preventive detentionMaintenance of Public Order3 MPOwrit petitionsecurity of personlibertyapplication of mindunlawful detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged a 30-day preventive detention order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Multan against the petitioner's brother under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The detention order was primarily predicated on police reports detailing the detenue's involvement in criminal cases (FIRs). The core legal question was whether registration of criminal cases alone, absent independent application of mind and concrete incriminating material, justifies preventive detention. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was illegal, arbitrary, and issued blindly without independent judicious mind. The Court declared that preventive detention cannot rest on surmises, conjectures, or mere FIRs without tangible evidence satisfying an ordinary prudent person. Depriving a person of liberty without cogent justification violates Article 9 of the Constitution. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, struck down the detention order, and directed the detenue's immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Can a preventive detention order under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 be validly issued solely on the basis of registered FIRs without other concrete evidence?
  • Is a detaining authority required to apply an independent judicious mind to police reports before issuing a preventive detention order under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?
  • Does a preventive detention order based on insufficient and flimsy material violate the fundamental right to liberty under Article 9 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mehmood vs Benazir Income Support Programme Bisp through Secretary and others2023 PLJ Islamabad 267 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shahid Mehmood vs Benazir Income Support Programme (Bisp) and others2023 IHC 156, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1103 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-28
  quo warrantopublic officewrit jurisdictionstatutory interpretationsubordinate legislationfrivolous litigationBISP
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of two Directors within the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP). The core legal question was whether these subordinate administrative positions constitute 'public offices' amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the posts in question were not public offices. Relying on the principle established in Salahuddin vs Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd, the Court clarified that a writ of quo warranto only lies for substantive public offices created directly by statute or the Constitution, not for subordinate 'support-posts' created subsequently by regulations or delegated authority to assist statutory bodies. The Court found that the BISP Directors were merely employees, not holders of public office. Furthermore, the Court noted the petition was frivolous, motivated by personal vendetta, and filed after significant delay, resulting in the imposition of costs on the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does a writ of quo warranto lie against subordinate posts or 'support-posts' not created directly by statute?
  • Are administrative positions within the Benazir Income Support Programme considered public offices for the purposes of Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • What is the test for determining whether a position constitutes a substantive public office amenable to a writ of quo warranto?
  • Can a court impose costs on a petitioner for filing a frivolous and vexatious petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mehmood S/O Shaikh Salahuddidn vs The State2023 SHC 359 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-30
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausesection 489-f ppcstatutory liberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Shahid Mehmood, seeking release in Crime No. 165/2022 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Awami Colony, Karachi, after his earlier bail application was dismissed by the trial court. The core legal question concerns whether post-arrest bail should be granted for an offense under Section 489-F PPC that does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where the investigation is complete, the accused is not a previous convict, and the maximum punishment is three years. The Sindh High Court allowed the bail application, holding that since the offense falls outside the prohibitory clause and the accused is no longer required for investigation, the grant of bail is the general rule and refusal is an exception. The court reaffirmed that Section 489-F is meant to penalize criminal acts rather than serve as a recovery mechanism for civil claims, and that provisional liberty should not be denied absent exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted as a rule when an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  • Does Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 serve as a mechanism for the recovery of civil debts?
  • Can bail be refused to an accused solely on the ground that the offense carries allegations of financial dishonesty?
  Read full judgment →