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.

• Shahid Khan vs The State etc.2023 PHC 374 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-14Read full judgment →
• Shahid Imran vs The State, etc2023 LHC 4435 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-31
  pre-arrest bailchild marriagestatutory rapeabductionoption of pubertycodified law vs personal lawminor consentcriminal justice system
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for the alleged abduction and rape of a minor girl. The core legal questions involved the legality and validity of a marriage contracted with a minor under uncodified Muslim personal law versus codified statutory laws such as the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, and whether pre-arrest bail could be granted in such circumstances. The Lahore High Court held that codified statutory provisions setting the minimum age of marriage for females at sixteen years take precedence over divergent traditional or sectarian views under personal law, and that a marriage contracted in violation thereof cannot be used to defeat penal consequences or establish a valid defense under general exceptions. The court dismissed the pre-arrest bail petition, ruling that the petitioner failed to establish mala fide and that reasonable grounds existed connecting him to non-bailable offences. The key principles laid down emphasize the supremacy of enacted child protection legislation, the state's obligations under international conventions, and the strict enforcement of statutory age limits for marriage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether codified statutory laws fixing the minimum age of marriage prevail over uncodified personal law and sectarian interpretations?
  • Can a marriage contracted in violation of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 provide a valid legal defense to charges of abduction and rape under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Does a female minor below the age of sixteen years possess the legal capacity to give valid consent to a marriage contract or sexual intercourse?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to an accused when reasonable grounds exist to believe he is implicated in a non-bailable offence without proof of mala fide?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali vs The State2023 YLR 1204 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-15
  qatl-e-amdlast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencecapital punishmentforensic evidencesodomycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the qatl-e-amd of a minor child. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence—specifically "last seen" testimony, forensic reports, and an extra-judicial confession made to a media outlet—was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence, holding that the prosecution successfully established a continuous chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court affirmed that "last seen" evidence, when credible and proximate in time and space, provides a reliable link between the accused and the victim. Furthermore, the Court held that modern forensic science and media recordings are admissible under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and that a single reliable witness is sufficient to base a conviction. The Court concluded that the appellant’s extra-judicial confession, corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of incriminating items, left no margin for the hypothesis of innocence, thereby justifying the capital punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on the testimony of a single "last seen" witness?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession made to a media outlet admissible as evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Does Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 allow for the use of modern forensic techniques and digital evidence in court?
  • Is the testimony of a "chance witness" reliable if it is consistent and lacks evidence of enmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali S/o Nawab Ali, Resident of Fiza Gat, Mohallah Hayat Abad,2023 PHC 598 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-12-07Read full judgment →
• Shaheena Naseer Lecturer Political Science in Government Girls Post2023 PLC (C.S.) 166 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-11-30
  service appealtransfer and postingpolitical influencetransparency in administrationjudicial reviewcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a Lecturer in Political Science, challenged her transfer from Muzaffarabad to Authmuqam before the Service Tribunal, which dismissed her appeal. The core legal questions involved whether a civil servant could be transferred during an academic session and whether the transfer order was tainted with political influence and a lack of transparency. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that while transfers during an academic session are not barred absent a specific policy, the failure of the authorities to justify why a newly selected candidate on an advertised vacant post was not appointed there, instead of displacing the appellant through a transfer, substantiated claims of political influence and a lack of transparency. The Court laid down the principle that administrative authorities must exercise their powers reasonably and transparently, and where mala fide or political influence is apparent and unexplained, such administrative orders are subject to judicial review and may be set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant can be transferred during an academic session without an explicit prohibitory policy?
  • Does the failure of departmental authorities to explain the adjustment of a newly selected candidate against a transferred employee's post raise a presumption of political influence?
  • Are administrative orders issued without transparency and fair exercise of power subject to judicial review?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Shah vs The State through A.G and others2023 PHC 283 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-11Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Freight Service (SFS) through General Manager vs Mol Pakistan2023 CLD 1189 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-19Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Alam and 3 others vs Mst. Bibi Salma (Widow) and 7 others2023 CLC 685 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-31Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz S/O Abdul Ghani vs The Sho P.S Aziz Bhatti & others2023 SHC 552 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-12
  registration of FIRJustice of Peacecognizable offenceSection 22-A Cr.P.C.police inactionmala fidecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order passed by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace/IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East, which dismissed the applicant's request for a direction to the Station House Officer (SHO) to register an FIR against proposed accused persons. The core legal question was whether the Justice of Peace erred in refusing to direct the registration of an FIR based on the applicant's allegations. The Court held that the impugned order was well-reasoned, noting that the underlying dispute appeared civil in nature and that the applicant's version of events was suspicious, particularly given that the accused were abroad at the time of the alleged incident. The Court affirmed that while the Justice of Peace has an administrative duty to redress grievances regarding police inaction, this power is not mandatory in every instance. The Justice of Peace must apply their judicial mind to determine if a cognizable offence is prima facie disclosed and must prevent the misuse of Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for harassment or mala fide purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Ex-officio Justice of Peace legally bound to direct the registration of an FIR in every case where a complaint is filed under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the Justice of Peace have the authority to examine the veracity of pleadings and the presence of mala fide intent before ordering the registration of an FIR?
  • Is the role of the Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 administrative or investigative in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and 3 others2023 PTD 30 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-20Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Akmal vs The State through Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore2023 SCP 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-05
  statutory delaybailfair trialdue processlawyers' strikeprofessional conductcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, detained in a murder case since 2018, sought bail on the ground of statutory delay under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, arguing that the trial had not concluded within the statutory period. The Supreme Court examined whether the ground of statutory delay remained available after a previous bail application on the same ground had been withdrawn. Relying on precedents, the Court held that once a bail application based on statutory delay is withdrawn, that specific ground cannot be re-agitated in a subsequent application. Consequently, the petition was found not maintainable and dismissed. However, the Court expressed concern over trial delays caused by lawyers' strikes and the absence of counsel, emphasizing that such delays infringe upon the accused's constitutional right to a fair trial and due process. The Court directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously within two months, clarifying that the trial should not be adjourned due to the absence of the complainant's counsel or co-accused, and reiterated the professional duty of advocates to appear in court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bail application based on statutory delay be re-agitated if a previous application on the same ground was withdrawn?
  • Does a court have the discretion to adjourn a criminal trial due to the absence of the complainant's advocate?
  • What is the duty of an advocate regarding court appearances when representing a detained accused?
  • Can a trial court proceed with a case if a co-accused is absent?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Akmal vs State through Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore and anotherPLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 117, 2023 PSC (Crl.) 98 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-09
  statutory delaypost-arrest bailwithdrawal of bail applicationright to fair triallawyer strikesexpeditious trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under FIR No. 246/18 at Police Station Gulgasht, Multan. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner remains entitled to statutory bail under the third proviso of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, despite having previously withdrawn a bail application after the statutory period had elapsed. The Supreme Court held that once a bail application is withdrawn during the subsistence of a statutory ground, the same ground cannot be re-urged in a subsequent application, rendering the petition not maintainable on that score as per established precedents. The Court further laid down that a detained accused must not suffer prolonged incarceration due to lawyer strikes or the absence of the complainant's advocate, emphasizing that the right to a fair trial and liberty under the Constitution must be safeguarded through expeditious trial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bail application on the ground of statutory delay can be repeated after a previous bail application on the same ground has been withdrawn?
  • Does the right to statutory bail subsist if a bail application is withdrawn after the completion of the statutory detention period?
  • Can a criminal trial be adjourned solely due to the absence of the complainant's advocate or co-accused?
  • What is the obligation of the trial court when a detained accused suffers prolonged incarceration due to lawyer strikes?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahadat Ali, The State vs The State, etc, Shahadat Ali2023 LHC 2967, 2024 PCRLJ 385 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-03
  narcotics possessionchain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtvehicle confiscationcapital sentence referenceControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence for narcotics possession. The Lahore High Court examined the prosecution's evidence, specifically the chain of custody of seized samples and the validity of the chemical analysis reports. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken, secure chain of custody for the narcotics samples, as the testimony regarding their transmission was contradictory and the reports lacked necessary details. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the chemical analyst's report must strictly comply with the mandatory protocols and reporting requirements stipulated in the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001. Failure to adhere to these rules renders the report unreliable and incapable of sustaining a conviction. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of the doubt. Additionally, the Court dismissed the State's appeal regarding the confiscation of the vehicle, ruling that confiscation requires proof of the owner's knowledge of the offense, which was not established. The judgment reinforces that stringent narcotics laws require strict proof, and procedural lapses in sample handling or analysis are fatal to the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does a break in the chain of custody of narcotics samples vitiate the reliability of a chemical analyst's report?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for a chemical analyst's report under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Is a vehicle used in a narcotics offense automatically liable for confiscation if the owner's knowledge of the offense is not proven?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be sustained if the prosecution fails to provide the protocols applied in the chemical analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahab-ud-Din and one another vs Alam Zeb & 03 others2023 PHC 131, 2024 YLR 1122 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-15Read full judgment →
• Shah Zameen vs The State2023 PSC (Crl.) 67 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-10
  narcoticssafe custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubttamperingcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant, Shah Zameen, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possession of narcotics. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment, which was subsequently upheld by the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and transmission of the recovered narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner, thereby proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon review, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce evidence regarding who delivered the sample parcels to the laboratory, and the Chemical Examiner’s report omitted the identity of the person who transported the samples. Consequently, the Court held that the safe transmission of the samples was not proven, leaving room for potential tampering. Applying the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the safe transmission of narcotic samples to the laboratory entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 if the chain of custody of the recovered samples is broken?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the identity of the person who delivered the sample parcels to the Chemical Examiner?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Zaman Khan vs Govt of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through its Chief2023 SCP 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  protected forestbar of jurisdictionrevenue recordsclimate changeintergenerational justiceouster clauseforest settlement board
  Summary & questions settled

  These eighteen connected appeals arose from a common judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning ownership claims to lands in the former State of Swat, which were declared 'protected forests' via a 1976 notification under Section 29 of the Forest Act, 1927. Private claimants asserted ancestral ownership and challenged the notification, while the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa argued that the claims were barred by limitation and that the civil courts lacked jurisdiction under Section 92 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002. The High Court had held that civil courts possessed jurisdiction to determine if land was wrongly claimed as forest. The Supreme Court reversed this holding, finding that the private parties failed to produce any official revenue records supporting their claims, whereas the official records showed the Forest Department as the owner. The Court held that the statutory bar of jurisdiction under Section 92 of the Forest Ordinance was effective, particularly since the claimants bypassed the special remedies provided under the Ordinance. Emphasizing the ecological significance of forests and the constitutional duty to address climate change and intergenerational justice, the Court dismissed the private parties' appeals and allowed the Government's appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the bar of jurisdiction under Section 92 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002 prevents civil courts from entertaining suits challenging the boundaries of a notified protected forest?
  • Can a Forest Settlement Board be reconstituted to determine private land claims decades after the issuance of a protected forest notification and the finalization of land settlements?
  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to adjudicate land ownership claims against the Forest Department when the claimant has bypassed the special statutory remedies provided under the Forest Ordinance?
  • What is the legal effect of a statutory ouster of jurisdiction clause when alternative remedies are provided in the special statute but not availed of by the aggrieved parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Zaman Khan and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2023 PLD Supreme Court 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-07
  protected forestforest ordinancebar of jurisdictioncivil court jurisdictionforest settlement boardrevenue recordclimate changeintergenerational justice
  Summary & questions settled

  These eighteen appeals challenge a common judgment of the Peshawar High Court regarding land ownership disputes inside protected forest areas in Swat, originally declared under the Forest Act, 1927 and governed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002. Private parties claimed ownership based on oral assertions or private documents, seeking to bypass the statutory bar of jurisdiction and reopen long-standing settlement records after decades. The Supreme Court examined whether civil courts retained jurisdiction to adjudicate such claims and whether the Forest Settlement Board remained a continuous forum. The Court held that the civil courts' jurisdiction is expressly barred under Section 92 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002, that the Forest Settlement Board becomes functus officio after the issuance of notifications under the law, and that private claimants failed to produce official revenue records substantiating their titles. Emphasizing the ecological significance of forests, environmental protection, and intergenerational climate justice, the Supreme Court allowed the Government's appeals and dismissed the private parties' appeals, reaffirming the finality of protected forest settlements and the ouster of civil court jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the bar of jurisdiction contained in Section 92 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002 operates as an absolute bar against civil suits claiming rights in immovable property declared as a protected or reserved forest?
  • Whether the Forest Settlement Board constitutes a continuous phenomenon to which land disputes may be referred at any time, or whether it becomes functus officio after the initial forest notification process is completed?
  • Can a private party challenge a protected forest notification issued decades prior by asserting oral ownership without supporting entries in the official land revenue records or Haqdaraan-e-Zamin registers?
  • Do civil courts possess jurisdiction to entertain suits questioning the boundaries or notification of reserved and protected forests established under forest legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz Khan vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 259 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-19
  narcotics possessionmethamphetaminechain of custodyofficial witnessescriminal appealrecovery proceedingsK.P. Control of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 11(b) of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, for the possession of 500 grams of methamphetamine ('ICE'). The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the recovery of the contraband beyond reasonable doubt and whether the chain of custody for the forensic samples remained intact. The Court held that the prosecution's evidence, primarily consisting of consistent and confidence-inspiring testimony from official witnesses, successfully proved the recovery and the safe transmission of the contraband to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Court affirmed that minor contradictions in witness statements do not invalidate the prosecution's case when the overall evidence is consistent. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the absence of private witnesses does not vitiate recovery proceedings under the special narcotic law, which excludes the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of private witnesses invalidate recovery proceedings conducted under The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019?
  • Can the testimony of official witnesses be relied upon for conviction in narcotics cases if found consistent and confidence-inspiring?
  • Do minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses necessitate the acquittal of an accused?
  • Is the requirement of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to recoveries made under The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz and 18 others vs Government of Sindh through Secretary2023 MLD 735 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-03Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs The Province of Punjab and others2023 LHC 3220, 2023 PLJ Lahore 630 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-07Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Allah Bakhsh2023 CLC 711 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-30Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad and another vs Dr. Abdullah Khan and another2023 PLJ Quetta 134, 2024 CLD 369 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-06-13Read full judgment →
• Shah Jahan vs The State2023 SHC 258 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-03
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequefraudcriminal breach of trustprohibitory clausebail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicants, Shah Jahan and Gul Hassan, who were accused of fraud following the dishonour of a cheque issued to the complainant. The complainant alleged that Gul Hassan, acting as a middleman for the sale of the complainant's paddy, failed to remit the proceeds and instead provided a dishonoured cheque drawn on the account of Shah Jahan, his partner and brother-in-law. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the evidence collected during the investigation. The Court held that the investigation revealed prima facie evidence of fraud, with witnesses confirming that the purchasers had paid the full amount to Gul Hassan, who failed to transfer it to the complainant. Consequently, the Court determined that the applicants were not entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, which is reserved for innocent persons falsely implicated due to mala fides. The bail applications were dismissed, and the previously granted ad-interim bail was recalled.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail available to an accused against whom prima facie evidence of fraud exists?
  • Does the issuance of a dishonoured cheque by a partner/middleman constitute sufficient grounds to deny pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail intended to protect persons against whom reasonable evidence of guilt has been collected during investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Fakhr-e-Alam and others vs Mst. ShauIcat Ara and others2023 SCP 318, 2023 SCMR 2103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-24
  revisional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of factlimitationrevenue recordproperty ownershipcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that, in civil revision, set aside concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts regarding a property ownership dispute. The core legal questions concerned the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and whether revenue record entries are immune to limitation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reinterpreting evidence without demonstrating that the lower courts' findings were unreasonable or illegal. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that there is a blanket exemption from limitation for challenging revenue record entries, emphasizing that plaintiffs must establish when they discovered the alleged wrong entry. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that a revisional court must not substitute its own factual findings for those of lower courts unless the lower courts' interpretation is clearly erroneous. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting the plaintiffs' failure to challenge the adverse revenue order for decades.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the authority to re-evaluate evidence when exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is there a blanket exemption from the law of limitation for challenging incorrect entries in the revenue record?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts in a civil revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Fahad vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Islamabad & others2023 PHC 149 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shafqat Ali vs Mst. Imtiaz, Mst. Ali Shiba2023 SHC 1026 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-22Read full judgment →
• Shafiullah vs Junaid Khan and another2023 MLD 1452 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-22
  acquittal appealcircumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtwitness improvementrecovery of weaponcriminal jurisprudencemurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, D.I. Khan, in a murder case involving the deaths of two women. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had produced sufficient, unimpeachable evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the complainant had dishonestly improved his statement, the alleged recovery of the murder weapon was not supported by forensic evidence, and the Call Data Record (CDR) evidence was inadmissible due to lack of authentication. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The judgment reaffirms the principles that circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain of events leading exclusively to the guilt of the accused, and that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession, particularly when two views of the evidence are possible.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events is not conclusive?
  • Is an improved statement by a witness, made to strengthen the prosecution's case, reliable in criminal proceedings?
  • Does the benefit of doubt constitute a legal right of the accused or a discretionary concession by the court?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment in the absence of compelling and substantial reasons?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafiq-ur-Rehman and Ziauddin, Muhammad Hanif vs The State2023 SHC 425 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-27
  last seen togetherretracted confessiondelayed FIRkidnapping for ransombenefit of doubtfaulty investigationcapital punishmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences including kidnapping for ransom and murder. The core legal questions involved the reliability of delayed FIR lodgment, delayed Section 161 statements, uncorroborated 'last seen together' evidence, a retracted judicial confession, and doubtful recoveries under flawed police investigations. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to unnatural delays, inconsistencies between the retracted confession and medical/physical evidence, unsealed crime property, and a biased investigation. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that uncorroborated 'last seen together' evidence, a retracted confession inconsistent with objective facts, and doubtful recoveries cannot form the basis of a capital conviction. The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and recording Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements renders the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on 'last seen together' evidence without independent corroboration?
  • Under what circumstances can a retracted judicial confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C. be relied upon by the court?
  • Does failure to seal crime property at the spot vitiate the evidentiary value of recoveries allegedly made on the pointation of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafiq-Ur-Rehman and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 475 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-20
  concurrent sentencesconsolidation of sentencesinherent powerssame transactionquashment petitioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition filed by convicts seeking the conversion of their sentence of payment of compensation into simple imprisonment and the consolidation of multiple sentences in different trials. The Peshawar High Court examined whether it could exercise its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to convert the appeal into a quashment petition and whether sentences arising from different trials out of the same transaction could be ordered to run concurrently under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that where distinct trials arise from the same transaction and the earlier conviction was not brought to the notice of the court at the time of the subsequent conviction, the High Court possesses wide jurisdiction under section 561-A read with section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct that multiple sentences run concurrently. The key principle laid down is that courts may exercise inherent and statutory powers to order sentences from separate trials emanating from a single transaction to run concurrently to meet the ends of justice and prevent hardship.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court convert an appeal into a quashment petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after dismissing the initial appeal?
  • Whether sentences awarded in two different trials arising out of the same transaction can be ordered to run concurrently?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under section 561-A read with section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to consolidate sentences even if the issue was not addressed by the trial or appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafiq Ahmad vs Ibrahim Abid and other2023 PLJ Karachi 72 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-25Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others vs Mst. Janat2023 CLC 49 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-28Read full judgment →
• Shaffat Ibrahim Khan vs Chairman National Accountability Bureau and others2023 LHC 6990, 2024 PCRLJ 539 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-05
  National Accountability Ordinanceproperty freezingacquittalconstitutional petitionalienation of propertystatutory interpretationpresumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the legality of a restriction placed by the Military Estate Officer on property purchased by the petitioner from an individual previously acquitted of corruption charges by an Accountability Court. The core legal question was whether the statutory prohibition on property transfer under Section 23 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 remains operative after an acquittal and during the pendency of an appeal or a petition for leave to appeal. The Court held that the restriction under Section 23 is an interlocutory measure that ceases to operate upon the conclusion of the trial and the acquittal of the accused. It further clarified that Section 23 does not extend to proceedings before the High Court. Consequently, the Court ruled that in the absence of a specific stay order from the Supreme Court, the acquittal holds the field, and the petitioner is entitled to have the property restriction removed. The key principle laid down is that statutory restrictions on property alienation under the Ordinance are strictly construed and terminate upon acquittal, unless a higher court explicitly orders otherwise.

  Questions settled

  • Does the restriction on property transfer under Section 23 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 continue after the acquittal of an accused by the trial court?
  • Does the term 'Court' in Section 23 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 include the High Court?
  • Can a property restriction under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 be maintained solely on the basis of a pending petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court without a stay order?
  Read full judgment →
• Shad Nabi vs Naimat Khan and another2023 MLD 520 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-28
  post-arrest bailmurderprohibitory limbabscondenceFSL reportco-accused acquittalcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused-petitioner, who was charged under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the complainant's brother. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to the concession of bail given the allegations of direct nomination in the FIR, the recovery of multiple firearm empties, and the acquittal of a co-accused who allegedly played a similar role. The Court held that the accused-petitioner was prima facie connected to the offense, noting that the FSL report corroborated the use of multiple weapons and that the accused had absconded while his co-accused faced trial. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, finding the case fell within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is directly nominated in an FIR for a capital offense and forensic evidence supports the prosecution's version of multiple assailants, the mere acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically entitle the absconding accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused with a similar role automatically entitle an absconding accused to the concession of bail?
  • Does the recovery of multiple firearm empties and direct nomination in an FIR connect an accused to an offense under the prohibitory limb of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused who absconds during the trial of co-accused entitled to the same evidentiary considerations as those who faced trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabraz Shabir vs District Education Officer (Male) Elementary and Secondary Education, Muzaffarabad and 5 others2023 PLC (C.S) 718 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-06-08
  constitutional petitionproxy litigationservice matterappointment validityclean handsmaintainabilitymerit list
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir through a writ petition filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, seeking the cancellation of appointment orders of private respondents to the post of Naib Qasid. The core legal questions involve whether multiple appointments can be made against an advertised post when the advertisement permits the increase or decrease of available vacancies, and whether a second round of constitutional petitions on the same cause of action constitutes vexatious or proxy litigation after a previous challenge has been dismissed up to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable as it constitutes a proxy and vexatious litigation following the final dismissal of identical challenges by the superior courts, and that appointments made from a valid waiting list or merit list pursuant to an advertisement clause allowing the enhancement of posts are lawful. The key principles laid down are that a petitioner invoking extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction must approach the court with clean hands and bona fides, that repeated or proxy litigation on matters already resolved up to the apex court must be discouraged, and that the discretionary writ jurisdiction cannot be utilized to reopen settled departmental selections absent substantiated illegality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second constitutional petition challenging the same appointment orders is maintainable after a prior challenge on identical grounds has been dismissed up to the Supreme Court?
  • Can an appointing authority make multiple appointments against an advertised position when the advertisement explicitly stipulates that the number of posts may be increased or decreased?
  • Does a candidate who participated unsuccessfully in a selection process possess the bona fides to challenge the resulting appointments through extraordinary writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabir Muhammad vs The State2023 SHC 918 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-04
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycivil disputedishonoured chequeprohibitory clausecriminal breach of trustcheating
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Shabir Muhammad, seeking enlargement on bail in FIR No. 1182 of 2021 registered at Police Station Aziz Bhatti, Karachi, under Sections 406, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to a business transaction regarding the sale of a motor vehicle. The core legal question before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail when the dispute was primarily civil in nature and the offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the matter ex facie appeared to be a civil/business transaction, that the case called for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the grant of bail in offenses not falling within the prohibitory limb is a rule while refusal is an exception. The court laid down the principle that subordinate courts must adhere to binding precedents regarding bail, that liberty cannot be curtailed by way of premature punishment, and that converting civil disputes into criminal cases requires careful judicial evaluation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dispute arising from a business or vehicle sale transaction involving a dishonoured cheque is primarily civil in nature?
  • Does the grant of bail in offenses not falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a general rule with refusal as an exception?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted on the ground that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether dismissal of a pre-arrest bail application for non-prosecution serves as a valid ground to refuse post-arrest bail if an accused is otherwise entitled on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain Gigyani, Advocate, Member Peshawar High Court Bar2023 PLJ Peshawar 31 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shabbir Ali vs The State2023 YLR 411 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-04-09
  counterfeit currencybenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalprosecution evidencerecovery proceedingsinvestigation infirmities
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for allegedly using counterfeit currency. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the evidence and investigation. Upon re-evaluating the evidence, the Court found the prosecution's case riddled with significant infirmities, including contradictions between the complainant's testimony and the police witnesses regarding the time of occurrence and the recovery proceedings. Furthermore, the recovery of the alleged counterfeit notes was not properly documented, and the investigating officer failed to maintain a proper record of the seized items. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant. Emphasizing the principle that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused rather than a concession, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution's case contains reasonable doubts?
  • Does a contradiction between the complainant's testimony and police witnesses regarding the recovery process undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the recovery of counterfeit currency is not properly documented or exhibited during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs Additional District Judge, Multan, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 439 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-19Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs Additional District Judge, Multan, etc2023 LHC 104, 2023 PLJ Lahore 225, 2023 PLJ Lahore 439 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-19Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs Additional District Judge, Multan etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 225 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-19Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad (Deceased) through Legal Heirs vs Mst. Shaher Bano and 22023 MLD 957 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-16Read full judgment →
• Shabbar Hussain and 2 others vs Provincial Government through Chief2023 PLC (C.S.) 1154 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-12-15
  writ petitionregularization of serviceproject employeesdiscriminationequal treatmentGilgit-Baltistan Order 2018Class-IV employees
  Summary & questions settled

  Writ petition under Article 86(2) of the Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, filed by project employees seeking regularization of their services on equal footing with their counterparts. The petitioners were appointed as Class-IV employees (Mali/Chowkidar) in a government project following an advertisement and selection process. When the project was converted from the development side to the non-development side with newly created permanent posts, the department terminated several employees while re-advertising the posts. The terminated colleagues successfully challenged the termination before the Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit-Baltistan, which directed their regularization. The petitioners, whose services had continued without formal termination, were nevertheless excluded from regularization while fresh recruitment was initiated. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court allowed the writ petition, holding that denying the petitioners regularization while granting it to similarly situated colleagues recruited through the same process constituted illegal discrimination and disparity. The Court directed the respondents to regularize the petitioners' services from the date their counterparts were regularized.

  Questions settled

  • Are project employees who were selected through a prescribed competitive procedure entitled to regularization when the project is converted to a permanent non-development setup?
  • Does excluding certain employees from service regularization while regularizing similarly situated colleagues appointed through the same process amount to unconstitutional discrimination?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabana Kousar vs Addl. District Judge and others2023 LHC 3325, 2023 PLJ Lahore 646 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-13Read full judgment →
• Shabana and others vs Public At Large and others2023 MLD 1484 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-29Read full judgment →
• Sh. Sajjad Umer vs Muhammad Din and others2023 MLD 1738 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-04Read full judgment →
• Service Global Footwear Limited and another vs Federation of Pakistan2023 LHC 3837, 2023 PTD 1120, 2023 PLJ Lahore 651, 2023 PLD Lahore 471 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-27
  super taxretrospective taxationpast and closed transactionsreasonable classificationconstitutional petitiontax yeardiscriminatory taxation
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenge the retrospective application and vires of Section 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, along with the First Proviso to Division IIB of Part I of the First Schedule introduced via the Finance Act, 2022, imposing a super tax on high-earning persons. The core legal questions involve whether Section 4C applies retrospectively to past and closed transactions, and whether the 10% super tax rate imposed on specific sectors under the first proviso violates the equality provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution. The Lahore High Court held that while Section 4C is a valid charging provision applicable to the tax year 2022 onwards and does not constitute a past and closed transaction, the First Proviso to Division IIB creating a sub-classification with an exorbitant 10% rate is discriminatory, arbitrary, and lacks any intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of the classification. Consequently, the court partially allowed the petitions, declaring the 10% rate ultra vires the Constitution and reducing it to 4%, while upholding the rest of the super tax provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 can be applied retrospectively to transactions claimed to be past and closed?
  • Does the imposition of a 10% super tax rate on specific specified sectors under the First Proviso to Division IIB of Part I of the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 violate Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Whether the legislature is competent to enact tax provisions with retroactive and retrospective effect?
  • Does the adoption of a special tax year under Section 74 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 exempt a taxpayer from tax liability enacted through the Finance Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Seraaj Din and 5 others vs Azad Government Of The State Of Jammu And Kashmir through Secretary Works and Communication, Muzaffarabd and 11 others2023 PLD High Court (AJK) 124 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-10-11Read full judgment →
• Sehrish Hanif and others vs Muhammad Aziz and others2023 PLJ Karachi 124 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-21Read full judgment →
• Securities And Exchange Commission of Pakistan through Authorized2023 CLD 225 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-06Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Finance Department, Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu And Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and 2 others vs Muhammad Rizwan Abbasi and 14 others2023 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 45 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-11-02
  service tribunal jurisdictionterms and conditions of serviceretrospective effect of notificationnecessary partieswrit petitioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the High Court, which accepted a writ petition filed by civil servants (Draftsmans in the Public Works Department) seeking retrospective effect for a notification awarding them BPS-11 from the date of approval of the Rules Framing Committee. The core legal questions involved whether the writ petition was maintainable without properly arraying the necessary government departments, whether the proceedings complied with the High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, and whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain a matter concerning terms and conditions of service in light of the bar under Article 47 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974. The Supreme Court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction as the matter fell within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, and that the writ petition was also defective for failing to properly implead necessary departments and violating principles of fair trial by not allowing all parties to file written statements. The appeal was accepted and the writ petition dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants in view of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable when necessary government departments are not properly arrayed as parties?
  • Whether a notification amending service rules can be given retrospective effect through a writ petition?
  • Does the Service Tribunal possess the competence to examine the vires of statutory rules affecting the terms and conditions of civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali sloHazir Muhammad, Resident of Managi District Swabi vs The State etc2023 PHC 446 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Secretary, Elementary and Secondary Education, Muzaffarabad and another vs Raisa Fatima, In-Charge Headmistress, Government Girls High School, Choki Mang, District Kotli, Azad Kashmir and another2023 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 167 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Secretary Schools Education, Government of Punjab and others vs Asghari2023 PLC (C.S.) 214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-22
  service tribunaldepartmental appealbogus appointmentdisciplinary proceedingsmisconductremoval from servicelaches
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions filed against the judgments of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside the dismissal and removal from service of the respondents—two teachers who were found to have secured employment and transfers through bogus and fabricated orders after their initial appointments were found erratic or withdrawn. The core legal questions involved whether a service tribunal can set aside departmental disciplinary proceedings and reinstatement orders without properly evaluating the record, and whether service appeals are maintainable without exhausting statutory departmental remedies within the prescribed period. The Supreme Court held that the service tribunal's judgments were patently erroneous, as the respondents were afforded ample opportunities of hearing during regular inquiries, failed to defend themselves, engaged in vexatious litigation, and did not file competent departmental appeals. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the tribunal's judgments, and restored the disciplinary penalties imposed on the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a service appeal is maintainable when the aggrieved civil servant fails to file a departmental appeal before the competent authority within the prescribed period?
  • Can a service tribunal set aside departmental dismissal orders without properly evaluating the inquiry record and evidence of misconduct?
  • Whether a civil servant whose initial appointment order was legally withdrawn can claim relief after remaining in slumber and failing to challenge the withdrawal for years?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Ministry Of Housing And Works and others vs Akhtar Hussain and other2023 CLC 59 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-25Read full judgment →
• Secretary Elementary & Secondary Education, Azad Government Of The State Of Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and another vs Muhammad Shoukat Khan and others2023 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 109 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-04-19Read full judgment →
• Secretary Council of Islamic Ideology, Azad Government of the State of Jammu And Kashmir and 3 others vs Syed Hamid Ali Bukhari, Calligrapher, Council of Islamic Ideology, Azad Jammu And Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and 2 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1159 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-06-17
  upgradationcalligrapherservice lawdiscriminationparityfinancial concurrencewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave challenges the judgment of the High Court whereby a writ petition filed by the respondent was accepted and the appellants were directed to upgrade the post of Calligrapher held by the respondent. The core legal question involved whether the respondent, serving as a Calligrapher in the Council of Islamic Ideology, was entitled to the upgradation of his post on the principle of parity and non-discrimination, given that similar posts had been upgraded in other government departments and financial concurrence had been granted by the Finance Department. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the High Court rightly issued the direction for upgradation as the Finance Department had given concurrence and similarly placed personnel in other departments had received the benefit, negating any justifiable ground for refusal. The court laid down the principle that employees holding similar posts across departments are entitled to uniform treatment and parity regarding upgradation when financial concurrence exists and no distinct promotion avenues are established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee holding the post of Calligrapher in a statutory council is entitled to upgradation on the principle of parity with similar posts in other government departments?
  • Does a High Court have the authority to direct the upgradation of a public service post when financial concurrence has been granted by the Finance Department?
  • Whether the absence of amended rules proving clear promotion avenues justifies refusing upgradation given to similarly placed personnel?
  Read full judgment →
• SDO/Am, Hasht Nagri Sub-Division, PESCO, Peshawar, etc vs Khawazan Zad2023 PSC 19 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-06
  civil procedurecorporate litigationpleadingsprocedural irregularitycuring defectsinstitution of suitssigning and verificationrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from a civil suit involving a corporate body, Peshawar Electric Supply Company (PESCO). The core legal questions addressed whether a distinction exists between the authority to sign and verify pleadings versus the authority to institute or defend suits for corporations; whether procedural rules for pleadings apply to appeals and revisions; and whether defects regarding such authority are curable. The Court held that signing and verifying pleadings is distinct from the act of instituting or defending a suit, and that procedural rules governing pleadings do not apply to memorandums of appeal or revision petitions. Crucially, the Court established that procedural defects or omissions regarding authority or filing do not affect the merits or jurisdiction and are curable at any stage of proceedings. Emphasizing that procedural rules are tools to facilitate justice rather than trap litigants in technicalities, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, holding that courts must lean toward adjudicating matters on their merits rather than dismissing them on procedural grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Is there a legal distinction between the authority to sign and verify a pleading and the authority to institute or defend a suit on behalf of a corporation?
  • Do the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the signing and verification of pleadings apply to memorandums of appeal and revision petitions?
  • Can a defect in the authority of a person to sign, verify, or present a pleading or appeal be cured at a later stage of the proceedings?
  • Does a procedural irregularity that does not affect the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court warrant the reversal of a decree or the dismissal of a petition?
  Read full judgment →
• SDO, PESCO Daudzai Sub-Division Ring Road, Peshawar and others vs Wadan Sher2023 CLD 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-25
  personal capacityboard resolutioncorporate veilcivil revisionlegal entitycorporationprocedural defect
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition challenging a High Court judgment that dismissed a Civil Revision due to the absence of a Board Resolution authorizing the petitioners to file the proceedings. The petitioners, officials of PESCO, were sued in their personal capacities regarding a disputed electricity bill. The core legal question was whether a Board Resolution from the company was mandatory for these officials to defend the suit or file a revision when sued individually. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its conclusion. The Court clarified that a company possesses a distinct legal identity separate from its employees. When officials are sued in their personal capacities, they are not representing the company, and thus, no Board Resolution is required to authorize their defense or legal filings. Furthermore, the Court noted that even in suits against corporations, the absence of a Board Resolution is a curable defect rather than a fatal one. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the requirement for authorization did not apply to individuals sued personally.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Board Resolution required for an official to defend a suit when sued in their personal capacity?
  • Does the absence of a Board Resolution in a suit involving a corporation constitute a fatal or curable defect?
  • Does a company have a distinct legal identity separate from its officials for the purpose of legal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi vs The President of Pakistan through Principal Secretary and others2023 SCMR 68 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-22
  Judicial Commission of Pakistanappointment of judgesjudicial reviewwrit jurisdictionconstitutional petitionlegitimate expectationArticle 199Article 175A
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Additional Judge of the Islamabad High Court, sought leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed his constitutional petition challenging the Judicial Commission of Pakistan's (JCP) decision not to confirm his appointment as a permanent judge. The core legal questions concerned whether the JCP's proceedings were legally flawed, whether its decisions are amenable to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution, and whether the petitioner possessed a vested right to confirmation based on a Chief Justice's recommendation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's holding. The Court ruled that the JCP’s proceedings were not vitiated by the presence of a specific member, that the JCP is not a 'Court' subject to the High Court's writ jurisdiction, and that a recommendation by a Chief Justice is merely a procedural step, not a guarantee of appointment. The Court established that JCP decisions are not subject to judicial review under Article 199, emphasizing that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and cannot be utilized as an appellate mechanism to challenge administrative or procedural decisions of the Commission.

  Questions settled

  • Are the decisions of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan amenable to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a recommendation for confirmation by a Chief Justice of a High Court create a vested right for an Additional Judge to be appointed as a permanent judge?
  • Is the Judicial Commission of Pakistan a 'Court' subject to the superintending authority of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the presence of a member whose eligibility is contested in a Judicial Commission of Pakistan meeting vitiate the entire proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayyab Khan vs Mst. Tayyaba Bibi and 2 others2023 CLC 1344 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-06Read full judgment →
• Sawab Din and others vs Civil Judge Dera Bugti at Sui and others2023 CLC 557 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-11-03Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Taj vs Government of the Punjab, etc.2023 LHC 4991 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-12Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Taj vs Government of the Punjab and others2023 CLC 2156 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-13Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Shah and another vs The State and others2023 YLR 1997 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-03
  narcoticsbenefit of doubtfalse implicationenmitysafe custodymalkhanacriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possession of narcotics. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the defense's plea of false implication due to prior enmity with the Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) officials. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, citing significant infirmities: the appellant provided credible evidence of enmity, the absence of independent witnesses (mashirs) despite the alleged enmity, the failure to produce malkhana records to prove safe custody of the narcotics, and the lack of evidence linking the appellant to the vehicle. The Court reaffirmed the principle that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the State's revision application for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a proven enmity between the accused and the investigating agency necessitate the presence of independent witnesses to support a conviction?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Must the court consider a defense plea raised in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the appellate court acquit co-accused who did not file an appeal if the prosecution case against them is found to be equally doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Masih vs Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal2023 LHC 5572, 2024 PLC 146 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-30
  departmental dismissalservice of noticeprisoner rightssubstituted servicedue processreinstatementlabour lawprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the dismissal of the petitioner’s grievance petition by the Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which upheld his dismissal from service. The petitioner, a Sanitary Worker, was dismissed while incarcerated for criminal charges without receiving personal service of Show Cause Notices. The core legal question is whether departmental proceedings resulting in dismissal are sustainable when the employee was not served with the requisite notices while in custody, and whether substituted service via publication was validly executed. The Court held that service of notice upon a prisoner must be effected through the Superintendent of the prison; failure to do so renders the proceedings void. Furthermore, the Court found that the department failed to establish that the petitioner refused service, rendering the resort to substituted service via newspaper publication legally ineffective. The Court emphasized that the right to be proceeded against in accordance with law is an inalienable right under the Constitution. Consequently, the impugned decisions were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can departmental proceedings resulting in dismissal be sustained if the employee was not served with a Show Cause Notice while in prison?
  • Is substituted service via newspaper publication valid if the department fails to prove the employee refused personal service?
  • Does the failure to serve a Show Cause Notice on a prisoner through the Superintendent of the jail vitiate the subsequent dismissal order?
  • Can an employee dismissed due to arrest be entitled to reinstatement upon release from jail even if not formally acquitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Khan vs Abdul Wahab and another2023 YLR 693 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtpresumption of innocenceappreciation of evidencecriminal trialmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, filed under Section 417(2-A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenges the acquittal of the respondent by the Sessions Judge, Tank, in a murder case registered under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the respondent and other police officials fired at the deceased, causing his death. The trial court acquitted the respondent, extending him the benefit of doubt. Upon review, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the respondent's presence at the scene of the occurrence or any nexus with the commission of the offence. The court noted that the respondent's name was absent from the relevant daily diary and no evidence linked him to the incident. Affirming the principle that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused and that acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence, the Court held that there were no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the trial court's judgment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a right of the accused in criminal proceedings?
  • Under what circumstances should an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
  • Does the absence of an accused's name from the daily diary of a police station constitute sufficient grounds to doubt their presence at the scene of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Sartaj Hyder Shar vs P.o Sindh and others2023 SHC 385 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-02Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz, and Allah Ditta vs The State2023 SCP 53 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  post-arrest bailmurderadverse inferencewithholding evidencebenefit of doubtocular accountrecovery of weaponforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and death sentences awarded to the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of the parents of one of the appellants. The prosecution relied on ocular accounts from two distant relatives, recovery of weapons, and a land-dispute motive. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the alleged eyewitnesses resided six kilometers away, failed to explain their presence at the scene during the late-night occurrence, and had past enmity with the deceased. Furthermore, the prosecution withheld the testimony of the deceased's son, an inmate of the house, prompting an adverse inference under Article 129 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Court also found the recoveries of weapons unreliable as the crime empties were sent to the forensic laboratory together with the weapons. Applying the principle that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal consequence under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when the prosecution fails to produce an inmate eyewitness who was in the best position to narrate the occurrence?
  • Does the positive report of a forensic laboratory lose its evidentiary value if the crime empties are sent to the laboratory together with the weapon of offence?
  • Can a conviction for a capital offence be sustained on the testimony of chance witnesses who reside far from the crime scene and fail to explain their presence at the spot?
  • How many circumstances creating uncertainty are required to entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt under Pakistani criminal jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz and another vs The State2023 SCMR 670 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-02
  MurderDeath sentenceAppealOcular accountEye-witnessesBenefit of doubtMotiveRecovery of weaponAdverse inferenceWithholding evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for the double murder of Haq Nawaz and Mst. Tharri Bibi, parents of appellant Sarfraz, under Section 302/34 PPC. The core legal questions revolved around the credibility of the ocular account, the presence of eye-witnesses, contradictions in their statements, the prosecution's failure to produce a key witness (the deceased's son), the unproven motive, and the evidentiary value of delayed recoveries of the weapon and blood-stained hatchet. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and acquitting the appellants. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing that adverse inference must be drawn against a party withholding best evidence (Article 129 Qanun-e-Shahadat Order), and that a single doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt, not as a matter of grace but as of right.

  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz and another vs State2023 PLJ 103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  benefit of the doubtmurderocular accountadverse inferencewithholding evidencemotivedelayed recoverycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court maintaining the conviction and death sentence of the appellants under Section 302(b), PPC for the double murder of the complainant's cousin and sister-in-law. The Supreme Court examined the ocular account, motive, time and manner of occurrence, and subsequent events. The Court noted glaring contradictions regarding the promptness and recording of the FIR, the doubtful presence of the distant complainant at the odd hours of the night, the failure of the prosecution to produce the natural inmate and eyewitness of the house, lack of source of light, unproved motive, and delayed safe-custody of crime empties sent alongside the alleged weapon of offence. Holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and emphasizing that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to produce a natural eyewitness residing in the house attracts an adverse inference under Article 129 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does sending crime empties to the forensic science laboratory together with or after the recovery of the weapon of offence impair the evidentiary value of the forensic report?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions and suspicious circumstances surrounding the registration of the FIR and the presence of interested eyewitnesses on the prosecution case?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ali vs The State, etc2023 LHC 2497 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-10
  pre-arrest bailsecond bail petitionfresh groundwithdrawal of bail applicationrule of consistencyfurther inquiryabetment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a pre-arrest bail application filed by Sarfraz Ali in case FIR No. 50/2022 registered under sections 302, 397, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ahmad Pur Sial, District Jhang. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a second pre-arrest bail petition after the withdrawal of the first one, and whether a fresh ground existed for entertaining it. The Lahore High Court held that while a second bail petition is generally not maintainable after withdrawal or dismissal on merits, it can be entertained if based upon a fresh ground not available at the time of the earlier application. The Court found that subsequent investigative changes, including a change of investigation finding the petitioner innocent and a later re-investigation finding him involved, along with the filing of a private complaint and the grant of bail to co-accused with identical roles, constituted fresh grounds and brought the case within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second pre-arrest bail petition is maintainable when once the first one has been dismissed as having been withdrawn after arguing the same at some length?
  • What constitutes a fresh ground for entertaining a subsequent bail petition after the withdrawal or dismissal of an earlier one?
  • Does the grant of bail to co-accused persons with similar roles entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail under the rule of consistency?
  • Can the merits of the case be touched upon by the Court while deciding an application for pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ali vs Federation of the Pakistan, through Secretary Information and Broadcasting, Government of the Pakistan, Islamabad and 10 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 640 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-13
  writ jurisdictionmaster and servantnon-statutory regulationsservice mattersmaintainabilityPEMRApromotion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), filed a writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Director (PS-09), alleging discrimination and violation of service regulations. The core legal question was whether the service regulations governing PEMRA employees are statutory in nature, thereby rendering the writ petition maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The court held that the PEMRA (Employees Service) Regulations, 2021, were framed by the authority itself without the approval or framing by the Federal Government, thus lacking statutory force. Consequently, the court determined that the relationship between PEMRA and its employees is governed by the principle of master and servant. The court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to enforce non-statutory service regulations. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable, as the petitioner failed to establish a statutory basis for the enforcement of service terms. The judgment reinforces the principle that in the absence of statutory rules, disputes regarding service conditions of employees of autonomous bodies are not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Are the service regulations of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) considered statutory rules?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable for the enforcement of non-statutory service regulations?
  • Does the relationship between the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) and its employees fall under the principle of master and servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ali vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Information and Broadcasting Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 10 other2023 PLJ Islamabad 11 · Islamabad High Court
  master and servantnon-statutory regulationswrit jurisdictionservice mattersPEMRApromotionmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Sarfraz Ali, filed a writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Director (PS-09), alleging discrimination and violation of service regulations by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA). The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable for the enforcement of service terms and conditions when the governing regulations lack statutory force. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that the PEMRA (Employees Service) Regulations, 2021, were neither framed nor approved by the Federal Government, thus lacking statutory backing. Consequently, the relationship between PEMRA and its employees is governed by the principle of "master and servant." The Court affirmed that where service regulations are non-statutory, constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, cannot be invoked for the redressal of service-related grievances. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed without addressing the merits of the claim, emphasizing that courts must determine the question of jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of a case.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable for the enforcement of service terms and conditions governed by non-statutory regulations?
  • Does the relationship between PEMRA and its employees fall under the principle of master and servant?
  • Are the PEMRA (Employees Service) Regulations, 2021, considered statutory rules?
  • Must a court decide the question of its own jurisdiction before considering the merits of a case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ali vs Chief Secretary etc2023 LHC 2645 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-18Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmed vs Member (VI), Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore etc2023 LHC 3262, 2023 PLJ Lahore 638, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1391 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-13
  Punjab Service Tribunalmaintainability of constitutional petitionArticle 212service mattertransfer orderjurisdiction of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Junior Clerk, challenged a transfer order and a subsequent order of the Punjab Service Tribunal (PST) before the High Court, alleging discrimination regarding the non-grant of interim relief. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable in the High Court against an order passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The Court examined the maintainability of such petitions in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Muhammad Armaghan Khan (PLD 2023 SC 190). The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It distinguished the present case from the cited precedent, noting that the Provincial Service Tribunals (Extension of Provisions of Constitution) Act, 1974 explicitly extended the provisions of Article 212(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 to the Punjab Service Tribunal. Consequently, the remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court of Pakistan remains available to the petitioner. The principle laid down is that where the provisions of Article 212(2) have been extended to a Provincial Service Tribunal, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain petitions against its orders, as the appropriate appellate forum is the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable in the High Court against an order passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal?
  • Does the Provincial Service Tribunals (Extension of Provisions of Constitution) Act, 1974 extend the provisions of Article 212(2) of the Constitution to the Punjab Service Tribunal?
  • Can an aggrieved party file an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmed vs Azad Government through Chief Secretary of Azad2023 PLJ AJ&K 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-09-01Read full judgment →
• Sarfaraz Khan & others vs Quresh Khan & others2023 PHC 514, 2024 CLC 1922 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-14Read full judgment →
• Sarfaraz Ahmed vs Afaque Ahmed and another2023 MLD 187 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-24
  acquittal appealcommon intentionappreciation of evidencedelayed FIRcriminal appealperversity of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal acquittal appeal filed by the complainant and the State against a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a perverse assessment of evidence or vitiated by legal error, specifically regarding the role of 'catching hold' attributed to the accused. The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the respondent's common intention or active participation. The court emphasized that the testimony of the complainant's brother was discredited by other prosecution witnesses who denied the presence of the deceased's brothers at the scene. Furthermore, the court noted the unexplained two-day delay in lodging the FIR. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's view is manifestly perverse or legally flawed; if the trial court's conclusion is reasonable, the appellate court will not substitute its own view.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  • Is the role of 'catching hold' of a deceased sufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without corroborating evidence?
  • Does a delayed FIR, where police were present at the hospital shortly after the incident, cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardara and others vs Manzoor Bibi through legal heirs and others2023 YLR 1764 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-09Read full judgment →
• Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 226 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-08Read full judgment →
• Sardar Tanveer Ilyas, Member of AJK Legislative Assembly La-15, Bagh-II vs Ch. Muhammad Yasin, Member of AJK Legislative Assembly La-10 Kotli-III and others2023 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 16 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad vs The State2023 PCRLJ 964 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-09-19
  murdercapital punishmentbenefit of doubtconfessional statementocular evidenceunnatural deathcriminal appealburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through ocular, medical, and confessional evidence. The Balochistan High Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and answered the Murder Reference in the negative. The Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed; the ocular testimony was contradictory and featured a witness introduced belatedly under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, while the confessional statements were deemed involuntary due to illegal detention. Crucially, the Court reaffirmed that while an unnatural death in a spouse's house is a relevant circumstance, it does not shift the entire burden of proof to the accused, nor does it suffice for conviction without independent corroborating evidence. The accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution's case contains significant infirmities.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the presumption that a spouse died an unnatural death within the matrimonial home?
  • Does the introduction of a new witness at a belated stage of trial under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 violate the principles of a fair trial?
  • Is a retracted confessional statement recorded after a period of illegal detention admissible as a basis for conviction?
  • Must the prosecution prove its case beyond reasonable doubt even when the defense fails to provide a plausible explanation for an unnatural death in the accused's home?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary2023 PLD Balochistan 27 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-30Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad (Deceased) through LRs---Appellant vs Taj2023 SCMR 1113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-04-06
  pre-emptionTalb-e-MuwathibatTalb-e-Ishhadservice of noticeco-sharercivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside an appellate court decree and restored the trial court's dismissal of a suit for possession through pre-emption. The core legal question concerned whether the pre-emptor had duly proven the mandatory statutory requirements of Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad, particularly regarding the proper service of the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad on all defendants/vendees. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the right of pre-emption is a weak right and strict compliance with the proof of Talbs is a pre-requisite. The Court affirmed that service of notice of Talb-e-Ishhad on one co-vendee on behalf of another does not constitute valid personal service in the eyes of law. The key principle laid down is that failure to prove the personal delivery and service of the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad to all respective defendants in accordance with law causes the entire pre-emption suit to collapse.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service of notice of Talb-e-Ishhad on one co-vendee can be treated as valid personal service on other co-vendees?
  • What are the strict evidentiary requirements for establishing the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad in a pre-emption suit?
  • Does the failure to prove the due performance or service of any single talb result in the dismissal of the entire pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Kashif Khan vs Federation of Pakistan, Law and Justice Division2023 SCP 127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-04-27
  general electionspolitical dialoguesimultaneous electionsconstitutional mandatePunjab Provincial Assemblyelection timeframesupreme court judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional petition seeking alternative means of political dialogue to resolve the impasse regarding the holding of general elections to the National Assembly and Provincial Assemblies, particularly the Punjab Provincial Assembly. The core legal question revolves around whether political negotiations between parties can override or delay the constitutional mandates and court-ordered timelines for holding elections following the dissolution of an assembly. The Supreme Court held that while political dialogue and voluntary efforts to reach a consensus on a single date for simultaneous general elections are appreciated and encouraged, such negotiations cannot operate to negate, erase, or indefinitely delay the election date already fixed by the court or violate constitutional timelines. The court emphasized that political dialogue must not become a ploy to avoid mandatory constitutional obligations under Articles 112 and 224 of the Constitution to hold elections within ninety days of a dissolution. The key principle laid down is that while political consensus is desirable, judicial orders and strict constitutional timelines for holding elections remain supreme and binding.

  Questions settled

  • Can political negotiations between parties override the constitutional timeline for holding general elections within ninety days of an assembly's dissolution?
  • Does a judicial order fixing an election date remain binding despite ongoing political dialogue for a consensus date?
  • Can a political dialogue be used as a ground to delay or avoid compliance with the mandatory requirement of holding provincial assembly elections?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Jan and others vs Muhammad Rafiq & others2023 PHC 562 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-02Read full judgment →
• Sardar Confucius Iman Qasrani.,Mumtaz Ahmed vs Sardar Mir Badshah2023 SCP 384, 2024 SCMR 461 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-11
  disqualificationArticle 62(1)(f)Elections Act 2017constitutional interpretationfake degreesgeneral electionsSupreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the duration of disqualification for candidates who submitted fake or unrecognized degrees during the 2008 general elections. The core legal question is whether the disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is for life, as previously held by the Supreme Court in Sami Ullah Baloch v Abdul Karim Nausherwani, or whether it is limited to five years pursuant to the newly enacted Section 232(2) of the Elections Act, 2017. The Court observed that the uncertainty regarding the applicability of the Supreme Court's prior judgment versus the recent statutory amendment could create confusion for returning officers and election tribunals during the upcoming general elections. Consequently, the Court determined that the matter involves significant constitutional interpretation requiring a larger bench under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023. The Court ordered the issuance of notices to the Attorney-General for Pakistan, Advocate Generals of the provinces, and the Election Commission of Pakistan to address the constitutional and legal questions raised, while explicitly directing that these proceedings shall not delay the scheduled general elections.

  Questions settled

  • Does the disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 constitute a lifetime ban?
  • Is the five-year limitation on disqualification introduced by Section 232(2) of the Elections Act, 2017 constitutionally valid in light of prior Supreme Court jurisprudence?
  • Does the interpretation of the conflict between a Supreme Court judgment and a subsequent statutory amendment regarding disqualification require a larger bench under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Bux vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1227 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-14
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailillegal gratificationanti-corruptionprohibitory clausemala fidered-handed arrestwheat smuggling
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple criminal bail applications, both pre-arrest and post-arrest, arising from a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants were charged with facilitating the illegal transport of wheat across provincial borders in violation of a government ban, allegedly accepting illegal gratification. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the nature of the offense, the alleged procedural irregularities in the raid, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court dismissed the applications, holding that the applicants failed to establish mala fide on the part of the prosecution. It was further held that bail cannot be granted solely because an offense falls outside the prohibitory clause, and that police officials are competent witnesses. Additionally, the Court clarified that prior approval for FIR registration is unnecessary when public servants are caught red-handed. The principle established is that the court must assess the existence of sufficient evidence connecting the accused to the crime, regardless of the prohibitory clause's applicability.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail mandatory solely because an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the registration of an FIR against a public servant require prior approval when the accused is caught red-handed?
  • Are police officials competent witnesses in criminal proceedings in the absence of private witnesses?
  • What is the effect of failing to establish mala fide on the part of the raiding party in a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Atta Ellahi Abbasi and others vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu And Kashmir through Chief Secretary, New Secretariat Muzaffarabad and others2023 MLD 1619 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Sardar Arsalan Haider Leghari vs Sajid Mehmood, Civil Judge, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 387 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-21Read full judgment →
• Sardar Abdul Qudoos vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law & Justice, Islamabad and others2023 F.S.C 5, 2024 PLD Federal Shariat Court 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2023-10-30Read full judgment →
• Saqib Ramzan vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 1479 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-29
  narcotics possessionsearch warrantprocedural irregularityinvestigating officer as complainanthabeas corpusbenefit of doubtcriminal appealtrial vitiation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 504 grams of Charas. The core legal questions concerned whether the investigation was tainted by the complainant acting as the investigating officer, the legality of the search conducted without a warrant, and the impact of procedural non-compliance regarding document supply. The Lahore High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, noting that the investigating officer, who was also the complainant, harbored a grudge against the appellant following a habeas corpus petition. Furthermore, the court found that the failure to obtain a search warrant under Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, without exceptional circumstances, rendered the recovery proceedings illegal. Additionally, the trial court’s failure to comply with Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the supply of documents vitiated the trial. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, establishing that procedural lapses and evidence of malice by investigating officers create reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the supply of documents to an accused vitiate the trial?
  • Can a police officer who is the complainant in a narcotics case also act as the investigating officer without causing prejudice to the accused?
  • Under what circumstances can the requirement for a search warrant under Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be dispensed with?
  • Does the failure to produce a material witness who transmitted the complaint to the police station for FIR registration weaken the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib Muhammad vs The State2023 YLR 2588 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-23
  rash and negligent drivingcriminal appealbenefit of doubtfatal accidentburden of proofhearsay evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Sections 320, 279, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rash and negligent driving resulting in a fatal accident. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the elements of rash and negligent driving to sustain a conviction. The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the charged offences. The court reasoned that the prosecution's case relied entirely on hearsay evidence, lacked independent eyewitness testimony, and failed to produce technical reports, such as a motor vehicle examiner's assessment, to establish speed or mechanical failure. The court laid down the principle that the mere occurrence of a fatal accident does not constitute proof of rash and negligent driving. The prosecution bears the burden of proving specific negligent conduct through cogent evidence. Furthermore, the court reaffirmed that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere occurrence of a fatal road accident constitute sufficient proof of rash and negligent driving under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the prosecution required to provide independent technical evidence, such as a motor vehicle examiner's report, to establish rash and negligent driving?
  • Can a conviction for rash and negligent driving be sustained when the prosecution's case relies solely on hearsay evidence without eyewitness testimony?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib Ali vs Government of Punjab and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-19
  provisional appointmentcharacter verificationpolice serviceacquittal on compromisecondonation of delayres judicatawithdrawal of appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order dismissing the petitioner's Intra Court Appeal regarding the withdrawal of his provisional appointment as a Hardware and Network Technician in the Punjab Police. The petitioner, having been provisionally appointed, was subsequently implicated in a criminal case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, leading the department to withdraw his appointment offer before he could join. Although the petitioner was later acquitted based on a compromise, the department maintained the withdrawal. The Supreme Court first noted that the petition was time-barred by 552 days without sufficient justification. On merits, the Court held that the appointment was explicitly conditional upon character verification. Given the nature of the Police department as a disciplined force, the Court affirmed the authority's right to withdraw offers where adverse character reports exist, even if acquittal is based on compromise rather than merits. The Court further held that the petitioner's repeated litigation on the same issue was barred by the principle of res judicata. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department withdraw a provisional appointment offer if the candidate is involved in a criminal case, even if the candidate is later acquitted via compromise?
  • Does an acquittal based on a compromise satisfy the requirement for a clean character record for induction into a disciplined force like the Police?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner fails to provide sufficient justification for a significant delay in filing?
  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to successive constitutional petitions filed by a candidate challenging the same administrative decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Sapphire Textile Mills Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2023 SHC 64, 2024 PTD 955 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-07Read full judgment →
• Sanwal alias Charya vs The State2023 MLD 742 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-22
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtextra-judicial confessionrecovery of crime weaponforensic reportacquittaladmissibility of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of Hafiz Talha under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment by the trial court. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the admissibility of an extra-judicial confession made to police and the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery where the recovery witness was not examined and the forensic report was not put to the accused during his examination. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case. The court ruled that a confession made to police is inadmissible under Article 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and that the failure to confront the accused with the forensic report during his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 renders the recovery inconsequential. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted based on the principle that any reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confession made by an accused to police officials admissible in evidence?
  • Does the failure to put a forensic report to an accused during his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the recovery of a crime weapon inconsequential?
  • Is it necessary to have multiple circumstances creating doubt to grant the benefit of doubt to an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs Mst. Razia Bibi and others2023 PLD Balochistan 12 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-03-31Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Sani vs Secretary Education Schools etc.2023 SCP 294, 2024 SCMR 80, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 161, 2024 PLJ SC 460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-08-17
  disciplinary proceedingsshow cause noticeservice tribunalmisconductinefficiencycorruptionpensionfundamental right to a fair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition is directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal upholding the punishment of withholding pension and recovery imposed upon a retired government teacher following disciplinary proceedings. The core legal question concerns the essential requirements of a valid show cause notice under disciplinary laws and whether vague charges can form the basis of a lawful penalty. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a show cause notice must conform to specific essential elements to satisfy principles of natural justice and the fundamental right to a fair trial, and that vague charges lacking material particulars vitiate the inquiry proceedings and resulting punishment. The Court laid down the principle that strict compliance with the essential elements of a show cause notice is vital, and that public authorities must base disciplinary actions on concrete evidence rather than non-existing material or presumptions.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential elements required for a valid show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings?
  • Whether vague charges lacking material particulars can sustain a penalty under service laws?
  • Does a service tribunal have a duty to write a speaking order addressing all substantive grounds raised in an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah and others vs The State2023 PCRLJ 717 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-02
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtdefective chargehonour killingcriminal appealanti-terrorismmurder convictionmiscarriage of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Criminal Jail Appeals against the judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court, which convicted the appellants for murder and causing the disappearance of evidence. The core legal questions involved whether the charge framed under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was defective, thereby prejudicing the accused, and whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt through circumstantial evidence. The High Court held that the charge regarding Section 201 was indeed defective, as it failed to provide the accused with sufficient notice, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the Court determined that the prosecution failed to prove the murder charge beyond a reasonable doubt, as the circumstantial evidence was incomplete, the motive was unproven, and the pointation evidence was unreliable. Consequently, the Court acquitted all appellants, extending the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms that the heinous nature of a crime does not lower the burden of proof, and that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain to sustain a conviction, with the benefit of any doubt being an inalienable right of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a defective charge that fails to provide sufficient notice to the accused regarding the specific offence vitiate the trial?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of evidence is incomplete?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or an inalienable right of an accused person?
  • Does the heinous nature of a crime lower the standard of proof required for a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah & others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & other2023 PHC 273 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-13Read full judgment →