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.

• Sana Ullah vs The State and 2 others2023 YLR 1727 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-27
  double murderdeath sentencedeaf and dumb accusedSection 361 CrPCocular accountmedical evidencecriminal appealmental incapacity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the double murder of his in-laws and the attempted murder of his brother-in-law. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated and claimed he suffered from mental incapacity (fits) at the time of the occurrence. Additionally, the defence argued that the trial court violated Section 361, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, by failing to properly interpret proceedings for the appellant, who was deaf and dumb. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established guilt through consistent ocular testimony, medical evidence, and the recovery of the blood-stained weapon. Regarding the procedural challenge, the Court ruled that Section 361, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was not violated because the appellant, assisted by his brother as an interpreter, fully understood the proceedings and actively participated in the trial. The Court further observed that the defence failed to substantiate the plea of mental incapacity, as the medical documents produced were not proved in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to interpret proceedings for a deaf and dumb accused necessarily invalidate a trial under Section 361, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the accused claims mental incapacity but fails to prove the supporting medical documents?
  • Does the presence of an interpreter during trial proceedings satisfy the requirements of Section 361, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Rizwan & another, Muhammad Farooq vs State2023 SHC 266 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-16
  forgerycheatingburden of proofbenefit of doubthandwriting analysisdelayed FIRcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while a connected criminal revision application seeks enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the charges of forgery and cheating beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in the absence of forensic verification of the disputed signatures. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellants. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting the absence of expert handwriting analysis and the trial court's failure to exercise its authority under Article 84(2) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 to compare signatures. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; it cannot shift this burden to the accused. Furthermore, unexplained inordinate delay in lodging an FIR casts doubt on the prosecution's case, and convictions cannot be based on assumptions or presumptions.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging an FIR create sufficient doubt to warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Can a trial court convict an accused for forgery based on assumptions regarding the possession of original documents without forensic verification?
  • Is the trial court empowered to compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when forensic evidence is unavailable?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt permit the shifting of the burden of proof onto the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Rizwan & another vs Muhammad Farooq, State2023 SHC 264 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-16
  forgerycheatinghandwriting expertcomparison of signaturesinordinate delay in FIRburden of proofbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against conviction and a criminal revision application seeking enhancement of sentence arising from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Karachi South. The appellants were convicted under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly forging property documents and signatures. The core questions were whether the prosecution proved forgery beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of original documents and handwriting expert analysis, and whether conviction could stand on an unexplained 11-year delay in lodging the FIR. The High Court acquitted the appellants and dismissed the revision as infructuous. It held that the trial court erroneously shifted the burden of proof onto the accused to produce original documents and relied on assumptions. Furthermore, the civil court's dismissal of suits contained no finding of forgery as claimed, the investigating officer failed to procure forensic verification, the trial court omitted to invoke Article 84 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and the inordinate delay severely undermined the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted of forgery under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without handwriting expert verification or judicial comparison of questioned signatures?
  • Can the burden of producing original disputed documents be shifted onto the accused when the prosecution alleges that those documents are forged?
  • What is the effect of an unexplained eleven-year delay in lodging an FIR on the credibility of the prosecution case?
  • Does a trial court err in basing a criminal conviction on assumed findings of forgery from a civil court judgment when no such findings or issues were recorded?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Latif vs Mst. Sadaqat Abbasi and 8 others2023 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 1, 2023 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 149 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-04-13Read full judgment →
• Sana Latif d/o Abdul Latif Pervaiz vs Mst. Sadaqat Abbasi and 8 Others2023 SC AJK 26 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-04-13Read full judgment →
• Sana Jamali vs Mujeeb Qamar and another2023 SCMR 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-05
  Family lawDissolution of marriageEx-parte decreeConstitutional petitionAlternate remedyJurisdictionAppealWest Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964Article 199 of the ConstitutionSubstituted service
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that set aside an ex-parte Family Court decree for dissolution of marriage, maintenance, and dower, remanding the case for a fresh decision. The Family Court had dissolved the marriage on grounds of cruelty and non-maintenance, awarding dower and maintenance. The respondent, declared ex-parte, had filed an application under Section 9(6) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, read with Order IX, Rule 13 CPC, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, to set aside the decree, which was dismissed. He then filed a Constitutional Petition in the High Court, which was allowed. The Supreme Court held that the Constitutional Petition was not maintainable before the High Court because Section 14 of the 1964 Act provided an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of appeal to the District Court. The High Court could not assume appellate jurisdiction or convert the petition into an appeal. The Supreme Court allowed the Civil Petition, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Family Court's decree.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court entertain a Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution when an alternate remedy of appeal is available under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Can a High Court convert a Constitutional Petition into an appeal if the statutory right of appeal lies to a different forum (e.g., District Court) and not the High Court?
  • What is the scope of substituted service under Order V, Rule 20, C.P.C.?
  • What are the conditions for setting aside an ex-parte decree under Section 9(6) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Does the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies apply when a special law provides a specific forum and procedure for dispute resolution?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Ali Khan vs Behram Khan and 06 others2023 PHC 458 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-02Read full judgment →
• Samson Group of Companies vs Public Private Partnership and others2023 CLC 1699, 2023 CLD 1072 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• Samra Gul vs Chairperson TEVTA etc2023 LHC 3641, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 256 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-25
  PEEDA Act 2006dismissal from serviceregular inquiryfinancial embezzlementright to fair trialspeaking orderenhancement of penaltyconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Accounts Clerk, challenged her dismissal from service and subsequent appellate orders arising from allegations of financial embezzlement, unauthorized withdrawal of funds, and tampering with official records under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act 2006. The core legal questions involved whether major penalties could be imposed without a proper regular inquiry involving disputed questions of fact, whether the competent authority could enhance penalties without recording specific reasons, and whether separate liabilities of multiple accused officials were properly determined. The Lahore High Court held that the dispensation of a regular inquiry in cases involving disputed factual controversies and complex multi-accused financial irregularities violates principles of natural justice and fair trial, and that authorities must record reasoned, speaking orders when differing from inquiry recommendations or enhancing penalties. The court set aside the impugned dismissal order and remanded the matter back for a fresh regular joint inquiry against all concerned officials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a regular inquiry under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act 2006 is mandatory when charges involve disputed questions of fact regarding financial embezzlement?
  • Can a competent authority enhance the penalty recommended by an inquiry committee without recording explicit, justifiable reasons in a speaking order?
  • Whether dispensing with a regular inquiry in multi-accused financial corruption cases violates the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Samman Ghee Mills (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federal Board of Revenue and others2023 PTD 1704 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-01Read full judgment →
• Samiullah vs Special Judge Anti Rape/Sessions Judge, Sariab Division and2023 PLD Balochistan 46 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-15
  re-summoning of witnesscross-examinationcriminal revisionfilling lacunaechange of counselessential to the just decision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, challenging an order of the trial court that dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 540 of the same Code seeking to recall and re-examine a prosecution witness for further cross-examination. The petitioner argued that his previous counsel had failed to conduct a proper cross-examination and that re-examination was essential for a just decision. The core legal question was whether a witness can be recalled for further cross-examination under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, merely due to a change of counsel or alleged inadequacy of the previous counsel's cross-examination. The Balochistan High Court held that powers under Section 540 are discretionary in the first part and mandatory in the second part, meant strictly to advance the cause of justice rather than to fill gaps or lacunae left by parties, and the engagement of a new advocate does not constitute a valid ground for recalling a witness. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a witness be recalled for further cross-examination under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, solely on the ground of change of counsel?
  • Whether the discretionary powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, can be utilized by parties to fill gaps or lacunae in their case?
  • What is the scope of the court's power to summon or recall a material witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Samira Mahamadi vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 PLJ Karachi 112 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-18Read full judgment →
• Samina vs Additional District Judge etc2023 LHC 2773, 2023 PLJ Lahore 844 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-24Read full judgment →
• Samina Naz and 5 others vs Evacuee Trust Properties Board, Through its2023 LHC 5141, 2024 CLC 682 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-11Read full judgment →
• Samia Zaman vs Asad Zaman and another2023 LHC 5893 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-15Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah vs The State2023 YLR 1461 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-18
  Qatl-i-Amddeath sentence commutationocular evidencemedical evidence discrepancymitigating circumstancescriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account in light of alleged discrepancies with medical evidence, and the impact of the prosecution's failure to prove motive and the negative forensic report regarding the recovered weapon. The Court held that the conviction was well-founded based on the consistent and confidence-inspiring testimony of eye-witnesses, which was corroborated by medical evidence. The Court affirmed the principle that minor discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence regarding the number or seat of injuries do not negate direct evidence, as witnesses cannot be expected to provide a precise "photo picture" of injuries during a traumatic occurrence. Furthermore, the Court established that even if specific elements like motive and recovery are disbelieved, the prosecution's case remains sustainable if the ocular account is otherwise credible. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction, the Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, citing the failure to prove motive and the failed recovery as mitigating circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does a minor discrepancy between the number of injuries reported by eye-witnesses and those found in a post-mortem report invalidate the prosecution's ocular account?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained if the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive and the recovery of the weapon is disbelieved?
  • Is a death sentence automatically confirmed if the conviction for murder is upheld, or can the court commute it based on mitigating circumstances like unproven motive?
  Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah Abraham vs Fawad Ahmad and 8 others2023 CLC 588 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-23Read full judgment →
• Samero and 3 others vs The State2023 YLR 1483 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-01
  triple murderdeath sentence commutationunproven motivemitigating circumstancesocular and medical corroborationpartial acquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and confirmation reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting four appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the triple murder of three deceased persons and sentencing them to death, while acquitting co-accused. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive constitutes a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Sindh High Court held that the ocular testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of incriminating weapons, firmly established the appellants' culpability for the murders. However, because the prosecution failed to prove the motive set up in the first information report—stemming from a minor cattle trespass dispute—and considering other surrounding facts and circumstances, the court maintained the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life on three counts. The key principle laid down is that while the falsus in uno falsus in omnibus maxim does not apply and credible evidence can be separated and acted upon even if some co-accused are acquitted, the unproven nature of an asserted motive acts as a mitigating factor against the imposition of the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to prove an asserted motive serves as a mitigating circumstance to convert a death sentence into imprisonment for life?
  • Can the testimony of eye-witnesses be relied upon to convict certain accused persons when co-accused on the same set of evidence have been acquitted by the trial court?
  • Are death and life imprisonment under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 true alternatives, depending entirely on the facts and circumstances of each case?
  • What is the legal effect of an unproven motive on the quantum of sentence in a murder trial under Pakistani criminal jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Samand Khan S/O Zar Badshah vs The State2023 SHC 624 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-31
  criminal appealdefect in chargeretrialstatement of accusedpost-arrest bailprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court on the grounds of serious defects in the framing of the charge and subsequent trial irregularities. The core legal question revolved around whether the use of improper terminology in the charge and failure to record the statement of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the handwriting of the presiding officer caused a failure of justice under Section 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned judgment suffered from grave infirmities and irregularities, leading to a failure of justice. Consequently, the court set aside the judgment, remanded the matter to the trial court for a de novo trial starting from the stage of framing the charge, and granted post-arrest bail to the 74-year-old appellant due to his advanced age, subject to furnishing surety. The key principle laid down is that material errors in framing charges contrary to statutory requirements and procedural non-compliance vitiate the trial, necessitating a retrial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the use of incorrect terminology in a charge sheet cause a failure of justice under Section 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal consequence when a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not recorded in the handwriting of the presiding officer as required by Sindh High Court Rules?
  • Can an appellate court set aside a judgment and remand the matter for retrial due to gross errors in framing the charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Samaa TV and others vs Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan and others2023 SHC 1016 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-21Read full judgment →
• Salman Zahid vs The State through P.G. Sindh2023 SCP 126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-04-27
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycircumstantial evidencebelated statementbenefit of doubtforensic examinationcriminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against the Sindh High Court's order denying post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Sections 302/337-J/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the complainant's inconsistent statements and the lack of forensic verification of digital evidence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, converting the petition into an appeal and setting aside the High Court's order. The Court reasoned that the complainant’s repeated changes in stance and the significant delay in nominating the petitioner in statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 undermined the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the Court established that unverified digital evidence, such as an audio recording not subjected to forensic analysis, is unreliable. It reiterated that the benefit of doubt can be extended at the bail stage and that police opinion regarding guilt is not binding. Consequently, the case fell under the ambit of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, necessitating further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statement recorded by a prosecution witness at a significantly belated stage lose its evidentiary sanctity?
  • Is unverified digital evidence, such as an audio recording on a USB that has not undergone forensic examination, reliable for denying bail?
  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the post-arrest bail stage?
  • Is the police opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused binding on the court during bail proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Zahid vs State through P.G. SindhPLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-04-27
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycircumstantial evidencebelated statementbenefit of doubtcriminal procedureforensic examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Sindh High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 337-J, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the delayed nomination in the FIR and the reliance on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, finding that the complainant's repeated changes in stance and the six-month delay in nominating the petitioner significantly undermined the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the Court noted the failure to conduct forensic analysis on the alleged audio evidence and emphasized that the police's opinion on guilt is not binding. The Court affirmed that statements recorded at a belated stage lose their sanctity, and the benefit of doubt can be extended at the bail stage. Consequently, the Court granted bail, holding that the case fell within the ambit of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prosecution's evidence required further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statement recorded by a complainant at a significantly belated stage lose its evidentiary sanctity?
  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
  • Is the police's opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused binding upon the court during bail proceedings?
  • Does the failure to subject electronic evidence, such as a USB recording, to forensic examination render it unsafe to rely upon?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Zahid S/O Zahid Iqbal vs The State2023 SHC 146 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-22
  post-arrest bailabetment to murderelectronic evidenceadmissibility of evidencewitness influencecriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused charged with abetment in a murder case, following the death of the victim by poisoning. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution's evidence—specifically electronic data and witness statements—established a sufficient prima facie case to deny bail, and whether the applicant's actions constituted abetment under the law. The court held that the prosecution had established a sufficient nexus between the applicant and the crime, noting that the electronic data prima facie suggested a motive and a desire to eliminate the deceased, and that the allegations of purchasing and supplying poison constituted a prima facie case of abetment. While acknowledging deficiencies in the police investigation and potential issues regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence, the court ruled these were matters for trial. The court affirmed that bail is not appropriate where there is a reasonable possibility of influencing key witnesses and established a principle that the trial court should conclude proceedings within a fixed timeframe when denying bail to young offenders.

  Questions settled

  • Does the act of purchasing and sending poison to be administered to a victim constitute abetment under Section 107 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a bail application be dismissed based on a prima facie nexus between the accused and the crime despite deficiencies in the police investigation?
  • Is a court justified in denying bail if there is a potential risk of the accused influencing key witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Talibuddin, Muhammad Ali vs The Government of Pakistan &2023 SHC 252 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-07Read full judgment →
• Salman Talibuddin and another vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division and others2023 PLD Sindh 306 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-07Read full judgment →
• Salman Mushtaq vs Ex-officio Justice of Peace etc2023 LHC 2316 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-11Read full judgment →
• Salman Mushtaq and another.,Ahmar Ali vs The State through PG Punjab2023 SCP 383, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 66, 2024 SCMR 14 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-08
  post-arrest bailpre-arrest bailfurther inquiryabductionrestitution of conjugal rightsjactitation of marriageDNA evidenceprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from orders of the Lahore High Court dismissing the bail applications of the petitioners facing charges under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners were entitled to bail in view of a disputed marriage, pending family court suits, delayed implication, and a lack of medical examination. The Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and allowed them, confirming pre-arrest bail for one set of petitioners and granting post-arrest bail to another. The holding established that where a prosecution case presents a plausible alternative version involving a free-will marriage, lack of immediate medical evidence or DNA testing in a rape allegation, and a need to assess the bona fides of delayed implication, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making bail appropriate rather than withholding it as punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the gravity of an offense alone is sufficient to reject bail when the prosecution evidence creates doubt?
  • Does the absence of a medical examination or DNA collection in a rape allegation warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Whether a petitioner implicated solely through a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 long after the FIR is entitled to bail?
  • When does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Khan vs The State & another2023 PHC 165, 2024 MLD 392 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-20Read full judgment →
• Salman Khan and 2 others vs University of Swat through Vice-Chancellor2023 PLD Peshawar 40 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
• Salman Ashraf vs Additional District Judge, Lahore, etc2023 SCP 168, 2023 SCMR 1292, 2023 PLJ SC 481, 2023 SCMR 1292, PLJ 2023 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-26
  civil jurisdictionrejection of plaintsimultaneous proceedingscriminal and civil liabilitystandard of proofAccountability Courtres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the rejection of an application to strike out a plaint. The core legal question was whether a civil suit challenging the validity of documents (agreements and receipts) is maintainable when those same documents were previously relied upon by an Accountability Court in a criminal conviction against the defendant. The Supreme Court held that the civil suit is maintainable. The Court reasoned that civil and criminal proceedings serve distinct purposes—enforcing civil rights versus punishing criminal offences—and can proceed simultaneously. It clarified that findings of a criminal court regarding facts are generally irrelevant in civil proceedings, which operate on a standard of preponderance of probability rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that civil courts possess plenary jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and no statutory bar exists to prevent a civil court from adjudicating the validity of documents merely because they were subject to criminal scrutiny. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil suit be maintained to challenge the validity of documents that were previously relied upon in a criminal conviction?
  • Does a criminal court's finding on a fact constitute a bar to a civil court adjudicating the same fact?
  • Is there an implied bar on the jurisdiction of a civil court to try a matter simply because it was subject to criminal proceedings?
  • Can a civil proceeding be stayed or quashed based on findings of fact recorded in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Ashraf vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and others2023 SCMR 1292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-26
  rejection of plaintcivil and criminal proceedingsconcurrent proceedingsstandard of proofjurisdiction of civil courtAccountability CourtCode of Civil Procedure 1908
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the concurrent orders of the lower courts dismissing his application under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, for the rejection of a plaint in a civil suit for declaration filed by respondent No. 3. The petitioner contended that since an Accountability Court had already relied upon the disputed agreements and receipts to convict the respondent in a criminal trial, the civil suit challenging those documents was barred by law. The core legal question was whether a finding of fact or a judgment by a criminal court operates as a bar to a subsequent or simultaneous civil suit concerning the same documents or civil rights. The Supreme Court held that the finding of a criminal court on a fact is irrelevant in a civil proceeding, and civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously as they serve different purposes and operate under different standards of proof. The Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that civil courts have plenary jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to adjudicate suits of a civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred by a legislative enactment, and a criminal conviction does not oust the jurisdiction of a civil court to determine civil rights and obligations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the finding of a criminal court on a fact is relevant in a civil proceeding to decide the same fact?
  • Can a civil suit challenging the validity of documents be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 merely because a criminal court relied on those documents to convict a party?
  • Does the jurisdiction of a civil court to try a suit of a civil nature get barred by an implied rule derived from foreign jurisprudence rather than a statutory enactment?
  • What is the effect of differing standards of proof in civil and criminal proceedings on simultaneous litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Salma Tabassum vs Kh. Sohail Zafar and another2023 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 29 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-01-29Read full judgment →
• Saleema Bibi, Muhammad Ashram, Shamraiz Khan and another vs Worthy2023 IHC 414 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Saleema Begum vs Sher Ali Khan and 4 others2023 YLR 402 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-06-06Read full judgment →
• Saleem Mehmood vs Ch. Saeed Asghar2023 CLC 1131 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-03Read full judgment →
• Saleem Akhtar Kiyani and others vs Province of Punjab and others2023 LHC 4732, 2023 CLD 1452 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-05Read full judgment →
• Saleem Ahmed Jan vs Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad and others2023 IHC 350, 2023 PLJ Islamabad 358, 2024 CLC 953 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-01
  separation of powersjudicial independenceEnforcement of Women's Property Rights Act 2020quasi-judicial powersdue processcontempt of courtconstitutional petitionproperty rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment of Women to adjudicate property disputes and enforce orders through coercive measures, specifically regarding the eviction and auction of the petitioner's property. The core legal questions were whether the Enforcement of Women's Property Rights Act, 2020, and the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, violate the constitutional separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and the fundamental rights to due process and access to justice by conferring judicial powers on an executive body. The Court held that the Ombudsman, being an executive functionary, cannot exercise judicial powers, such as adjudicating civil property disputes, issuing binding orders, or enforcing them through coercive state machinery. Consequently, the Court declared several provisions of the 2020 Act and the 2013 Act ultra vires the Constitution. The judgment establishes that the adjudication of civil rights and obligations is a quintessential judicial function reserved for courts under the constitutional scheme of trichotomy of power, and executive bodies cannot be vested with judicial or contempt powers.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Ombudsman, as an executive functionary, be vested with judicial powers to adjudicate civil property disputes between private citizens?
  • Does the vesting of contempt powers in the Ombudsman violate Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are the provisions of the Enforcement of Women's Property Rights Act, 2020, and the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, ultra vires the Constitution for creating a parallel justice system?
  • Can an administrative body or tribunal exercise coercive state power to enforce its orders in the absence of judicial oversight?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Ahmad vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2023 PLC (C.S.) 1043 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-22
  disabled quotaconstitutional petitionemployment lawwrit jurisdictionpublic appointmentsanctioned postsservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the failure of the provincial government to appoint the petitioner, a disabled candidate, against the reserved 2% disabled quota for teaching positions. The core legal question was whether the disability quota should be calculated based on the specific posts advertised or the total sanctioned strength of the establishment. The Court held that the quota must be calculated on the basis of the total number of persons employed by the establishment, rather than the number of posts advertised at a given time. Finding that the total sanctioned strength of 2094 posts indicated a shortfall in the fulfillment of the disabled quota, the Court ruled that the respondents were legally obligated to appoint the petitioner. The judgment establishes the principle that disability quotas are to be calculated against the total sanctioned strength of an establishment to ensure fair representation. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner against an available post, emphasizing that public functionaries must act fairly and within the parameters of the law, subject to judicial review under Article 199.

  Questions settled

  • Is the 2% disabled quota calculated based on the specific posts advertised or the total sanctioned strength of an establishment?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under Article 199 to direct an executive authority to fulfill statutory quotas for disabled persons?
  • Can an establishment refuse to appoint a qualified disabled candidate by claiming the quota for a specific advertised post is already filled?
  Read full judgment →
• Salamat Mansha Masih vs The State and another2023 PSC (Crl.) 55 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-23
  post-arrest bailblasphemy lawscorroboration of evidencefair trialbenefit of doubtreligious offencesfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition seeks post-arrest bail for the petitioner who was charged under sections 295-A, 295-B, and 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in respect of an incident reported in an FIR registered at Police Station Model Town, Lahore. The core legal questions involve whether the uncorroborated oral testimony of witnesses regarding religious offences constitutes sufficient grounds for continued incarceration, and whether the case warrants further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence and constitutional protections. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any incriminating material, corroboration of witness testimony, or lawful recovery, and considering the requirement of extreme prudence and the avoidance of doubt in matters concerning religious offences, the petitioner has made out a case for further inquiry. The appeal was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail. The key principle laid down is that in cases involving serious religious offences carrying severe penalties, uncorroborated oral testimonies require independent verification, and the state must investigate with utmost care while strictly upholding the constitutional right to a fair trial and the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether uncorroborated oral testimony in offences relating to religion is sufficient to deny post-arrest bail?
  • Does the preaching of Christianity constitute an offence under the law?
  • What level of corroboration is required when dealing with offences carrying capital punishment?
  • Must the state exercise heightened scrutiny and meticulosity while investigating religious offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Salamat Ali and others vs Muhammad Din and others2023 PLJ SC 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-20
  inheritance mutationslimitation actbona fide purchaserpreponderance of probabilityrevisional jurisdictiondeclaration of titlefraudcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute over the estate of Nasir-ud-Din, who died in 1959. The appellants, claiming to be the direct descendants of the deceased, challenged inheritance mutations and subsequent alienations made by the deceased's nephew, Karam Elahi, who had declared himself the sole heir. While the trial and appellate courts concurrently found the appellants to be the legal heirs, the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, dismissed the suit as time-barred. The Supreme Court examined the standard of proof in civil cases, affirming that 'preponderance of probability' applies to establishing relationships. However, the Court held that while inheritance is not generally subject to limitation under Islamic law, the intervention of third-party interests (bona fide purchasers) triggers the limitation period. Under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the benefit of fraud-based extension is unavailable against bona fide purchasers. Consequently, the suit filed in 1982 against a 1960 sale was held hopelessly time-barred under Article 120 of the Limitation Act.

  Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin and 3 others vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1423 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-12
  benefit of doubtidentical roleparity in convictionpolice encounterunlicensed weaponsarms recoverycriminal appealanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 324, 353, 224, 225, 35 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with sections 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and sections 23-A(i)/25 of the Sindh Arms Act 2013. The core legal questions involved whether the appellants could be convicted on the same set of evidence when co-accused with identical roles were acquitted, and whether the recovery of unlicensed weapons was proved beyond doubt. The Sindh High Court held that when the benefit of doubt is extended to one set of accused with identical roles, it cannot be withheld from other accused facing the same allegations, especially when FSL reports did not connect the recovered weapons to the crime empties. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions for the main episode, extending the benefit of doubt, but maintained the convictions under the Sindh Arms Act while reducing the sentences to the period already undergone, laying down the principle regarding parity in treatment of co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the benefit of doubt extended to acquitted co-accused having identical roles must also be extended to the convicted appellants?
  • Can a conviction for illegal arms possession be sustained when the FSL report fails to match the recovered weapons with the crime empties from the spot?
  • Whether material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the specific role of an accused vitiate the conviction for assault?
  • Can appellate courts modify a sentence to the period already undergone in cases of weapons possession where the evidence of recovery is unimpeachable?
  Read full judgment →
• Salah-ud-Din vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2023 PLC (C.S.) 408 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-20
  Patwari appointmentLand Record ManualService rulesRecruitment policyWrit of mandamusCivil service recruitmentConstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a qualified Patwari candidate, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to appoint him as a Patwari, relying on provisions of the Land Record Manual and his inclusion in the Patwar register. The core legal question was whether appointments to the post of Patwari must be governed by obsolete provisions of the Land Record Manual or by the current statutory service rules and recruitment policies. The Court held that the petitioner’s reliance on Paragraph 3.11 of the Land Record Manual was misplaced, as that provision had been omitted decades prior. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Paragraph 3.6 of the Land Record Manual mandates that appointments be made strictly in accordance with applicable service rules. Since the government had duly amended the recruitment rules in 2016 to require a competitive test and interview process, the petitioner could not claim appointment based solely on his prior registration. The Court established that administrative rules regarding recruitment supersede outdated manual provisions and that candidates must compete through the prescribed recruitment process. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appointment of a Patwari can be claimed based on provisions of the Land Record Manual that have been omitted?
  • Does Paragraph 3.6 of the Land Record Manual mandate that Patwari appointments be made according to current service rules?
  • Can a candidate claim appointment as a Patwari solely on the basis of being entered in the Patwar register without undergoing a competitive test and interview?
  • Are the 2016 amendments to the recruitment rules for Patwaris in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa legally valid and binding?
  Read full judgment →
• Salah-Ud-Din and others vs Government Of Punjab through District Officer2023 SCMR 124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-18
  redemption of mortgagelimitation periodrevenue authoritiesBoard of Revenuestatutory barevacuee propertywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the maintainability of a second application for the redemption of mortgaged land under the Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964. The respondents’ predecessor-in-interest had previously filed a redemption application in 1972, which was dismissed by revenue authorities. Decades later, relying on a Board of Revenue memorandum that purported to enlarge the time for deposit of mortgage money, the respondents filed a fresh application. The core legal question was whether the Board of Revenue possessed the statutory authority to extend limitation periods under the Act and whether a second redemption petition was maintainable following the dismissal of the first. The Supreme Court held that the Board of Revenue lacked the power to extend limitation periods under the Act. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Section 8 of the Act expressly bars any subsequent petition by the same party regarding the same mortgage once an initial petition has been dismissed. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, ruling that the respondents’ claim was time-barred and legally prohibited by the Act's provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Board of Revenue have the power to extend the limitation period for filing a redemption application under the Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964?
  • Is a second petition for the redemption of mortgaged land maintainable under the Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964, after the dismissal of a prior petition by the same party?
  • Does Section 8 of the Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964, operate as an absolute bar to subsequent redemption applications once an initial application has been dismissed?
  Read full judgment →
• Sakina Bibi vs Additional Sessions Judge, etc2023 LHC 3761, 2024 PLJ Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-01Read full judgment →
• Sakhib Zar vs K-Electric Ltd. and others2023 PLJ Karachi 104 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• Sakhi Muhammad S/O Nawab Khan vs The State2023 SHC 548 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-11Read full judgment →
• Sakhi Muhammad (deceased), through LRs vs Mst. Maridan Mai and others2023 LHC 5844, 2024 CLC 2099 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-18Read full judgment →
• Sajjan vs The State2023 YLR 461 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-08
  death sentence reductionmitigating circumstancesfailure to prove motivecriminal appealjudicial cautionmurder convictionconfessional statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court against the appellant for the murder of his wife and the attempted murder of a relative. The core legal question concerned the sustainability of the capital sentence given the prosecution's failure to establish the alleged motive of illicit relations and the mysterious circumstances surrounding the incident. The Sindh High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular and medical evidence sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the court reduced the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The ratio of the decision is that where the prosecution fails to prove the motive and the true cause of the occurrence remains shrouded in mystery, judicial caution must be exercised. The court laid down the principle that while death is a penalty for murder, it is not the mandatory normal penalty; where mitigating circumstances exist—such as the failure to prove motive—the court should opt for the alternative sentence of life imprisonment to ensure justice with mercy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive in a murder case constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
  • Is the death penalty the mandatory normal penalty for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a retracted confession be taken into consideration against the maker if it is found to be true and voluntary?
  • When should a court exercise judicial caution to award life imprisonment instead of the death penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Rasheed Mirza and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 30 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-24Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Rabbani vs Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Limited and others2023 PLC (C.S) 953 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-20
  Voluntary Separation Schemepension benefitsseparation bonusbinding contractconstitutional petitionservice lawestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, concerns a dispute regarding the entitlement of an employee to full pension benefits and a separation bonus under a Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS). The core legal question was whether an employee, having voluntarily opted for a VSS, could unilaterally impose conditions on the scheme or claim benefits for which they did not meet the eligibility criteria. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the VSS constituted a binding contract under the Contract Act, 1872. The Court found that the Petitioner, having knowingly accepted the terms and conditions of the VSS, could not subsequently claim benefits such as pension or separation bonus when he failed to meet the mandatory requirements of qualifying service length and grade level. The key principle laid down is that a Voluntary Separation Scheme is a binding contract, and an employee who voluntarily opts for such a scheme is estopped from deviating from its settled terms or claiming benefits to which they are not entitled under the scheme's policy.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Voluntary Separation Scheme a binding contract under the Contract Act, 1872?
  • Can an employee who has voluntarily opted for a Voluntary Separation Scheme unilaterally impose conditions on the scheme's acceptance?
  • Does an employee who fails to meet the eligibility criteria for pension and separation bonus under a Voluntary Separation Scheme have a legal right to claim those benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain (Deceased) through Legal Heirs and others vs Mst. Mumtaz2023 CLC 806 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-14Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Haider Tareen, PDSP, Quetta and 10 others vs The Provincial Police2023 PLC (C.S.) 170 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-01-31
  seniority listpolice servicecadreprosecution branchconstitutional petitionservice rulespromotionBalochistan police
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the Police Department’s decision to maintain separate seniority lists for Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSsP) of the prosecution branch versus other branches. The core legal question was whether the prosecution branch constitutes a separate 'cadre' under the applicable service rules, thereby justifying the exclusion of its officers from the joint seniority list. The Court held that the prosecution branch is a functional unit and not a separate, independent cadre. Consequently, the Court declared the exclusion of prosecution branch officers from the joint seniority list and the issuance of separate lists as illegal and void. The Court affirmed that different branches of the police service, organized on a functional basis, remain integral parts of the police force and cannot be treated as separate cadres for seniority purposes. The Joint Final Seniority List dated 11th December 2017 was upheld as the valid basis for future promotions, and the Inspector General of Police was directed to convene the Departmental Promotion Committee based on this list.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prosecution branch of the Balochistan Police constitute a separate cadre for the purpose of maintaining seniority lists?
  • Can the Police Department maintain separate seniority lists for different functional branches of the police service?
  • Is the maintenance of a joint seniority list for all branches of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Service mandatory under the existing service rules?
  • Does the non-functionality of the Service Tribunal allow for the invocation of the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction in service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad alias Sijoo Gopang vs The State2023 SHC 142 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-12
  narcotic substancesplea of guiltcriminal appealchemical examiner reportsentence completionpossession of charas
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant by the trial court for the offence of possessing 500 grams of charas, punishable under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellant was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant, having already served the full sentence and been released from prison, informed the Court that he did not wish to pursue the appeal on its merits. The core legal question was whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were sustainable based on the evidence presented. Upon review, the Court found that the prosecution had successfully established its case through credible evidence, including the recovery of narcotics and a positive chemical examiner's report, which remained unchallenged. Furthermore, the appellant had previously pleaded guilty before the trial court. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a conviction based on consistent prosecution evidence and a voluntary plea of guilt, corroborated by forensic analysis, warrants no appellate interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal on merits when the appellant declares they do not wish to press the appeal after serving the sentence?
  • Does a positive chemical examiner's report regarding the intact condition of a sample rule out the possibility of tampering?
  • Is a trial court required to issue a show-cause notice under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an accused pleads guilty?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ali vs Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Baha-Ud-Din and 12 othersPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 361 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sajjad Ali vs Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin and 12 others2023 PCRLJ 600 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-13
  private complaintcriminal revisionissuance of processcross-versionprima facie casepreliminary inquirycognizable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, which dismissed the petitioner's private complaint regarding a cross-version of a murder case. The core legal question was whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard when dismissing a private complaint at the preliminary stage without issuing process. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court erred by failing to apply its judicial mind to the prima facie evidence. The Court emphasized that at the stage of issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the trial court is not required to conduct a full-fledged trial or weigh evidence in depth. Instead, it must take a "bird's eye view" to determine if a cognizable offence is prima facie established. The Court clarified that the defense version and deep evidentiary analysis are irrelevant at this preliminary juncture. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh, reasoned decision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of inquiry for a trial court when deciding whether to issue process on a private complaint?
  • Is a trial court permitted to weigh evidence or consider defense versions at the stage of issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the dismissal of a private complaint require a reasoned order based on a prima facie assessment of the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ali and others vs Abdul Rauf and others2023 PCRLJ 553 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-28
  anti-terrorism jurisdictionpersonal enmityprivate vendettatransfer of casecoram non-judiceterrorism definition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) which dismissed an application seeking the transfer of a case to an ordinary court. The core legal question was whether the alleged offence, involving physical assault and extortion claims, constituted 'terrorism' under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, or if it was a matter of personal enmity triable by an ordinary court. The Court held that the incident, stemming from private vendetta and personal enmity, lacked the essential design or objective required to qualify as terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court emphasized that even grave or brutal offences do not constitute terrorism if they are committed due to personal enmity rather than to create terror or achieve objectives specified in the Act. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, declared the proceedings before the ATC as coram non-judice, and ordered the case to be transferred to the Sessions Court for trial under ordinary jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence committed due to personal enmity or private vendetta fall within the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What is the test to determine whether an act constitutes terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can a case involving personal enmity be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court if the motive is not to create terror or achieve objectives specified in the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ali and others vs Abdul Hameed and others2023 CLC 812 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-15Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmed vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 1508 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-06
  bail cancellationperverse ordermurderdeeper appreciation of evidencesurety amountcriminal procedureprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition sought the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent-accused by the Additional Sessions Judge in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the lower court exercised its discretion judicially in granting bail, or whether the order was perverse and based on irrelevant considerations. The Peshawar High Court allowed the petition and recalled the bail order. The Court held that the lower court had engaged in an impermissible deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage, such as questioning the bore of the weapon and the delay in recording a witness statement, while ignoring prima facie evidence like the FIR and postmortem report. The judgment reaffirmed that bail orders based on irrelevant material or ignoring the weight of evidence are perverse and liable to be cancelled. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that bail surety amounts must be reasonable and sufficient to ensure the accused's presence, noting that meager amounts are inadequate in the context of current economic conditions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bail order be cancelled if the lower court engaged in deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage?
  • Does a discrepancy between the weapon mentioned in the FIR and the weapon recovered constitute sufficient grounds for granting bail in a murder case?
  • Is a bail order considered perverse if it ignores prima facie evidence linking the accused to the crime?
  • What criteria should a court consider when determining the adequacy of a surety amount for bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs The State, etc2023 LHC 4300, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 1074, 2024 YLR 1321 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-12
  pre-arrest bailitlaf-i-udwtooth as an organhurtarshdiyatPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 334/337-A(i)/337-L(2)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the loss of a tooth constitutes the loss of an organ attracting Section 334 PPC, or whether the offense falls exclusively under Section 337U PPC as argued by the petitioner. The Lahore High Court held that a tooth is an ectodermal specialized organ and that the loss of a permanent tooth falls within the purview of itlaf-i-udw punishable under Section 334 PPC, with Section 337U PPC serving to quantify the arsh. The court established the principle that teeth are specialized organs of the human body and their intentional destruction attracts penal consequences under Section 334 PPC rather than being treated merely as a minor hurt under Section 337U PPC. Consequently, finding the petitioner nominated with a specific role and no established mala fides on the part of the prosecution, the court dismissed the bail petition and recalled the ad-interim pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tooth is considered an organ of the human body under the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the loss or itlaf of a permanent tooth attract Section 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 or is it exclusively governed by Section 337U?
  • Whether an offense under Section 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is bailable or non-bailable according to the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal effect and scope of Section 337U of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in relation to the quantum of punishment for the loss of a tooth?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs State2023 PHC 12 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-07Read full judgment →
• Sajid vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 19 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-02
  dying declarationbenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder convictionevidentiary valuewithholding of evidencecorroborationmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested primarily on an oral dying declaration made by the deceased while injured, as no other eye-witnesses were produced. The core legal question was whether the dying declaration was reliable and sufficient to sustain a conviction given the lack of corroborating evidence and significant procedural discrepancies. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with a 24-hour delay, the site plan was unverified, and the prosecution withheld material witnesses, including the person who transported the victim to the hospital. Citing established jurisprudence, the Court held that a dying declaration is a weak form of evidence requiring close scrutiny and independent corroboration. Finding the prosecution's case riddled with doubts and inconsistencies, the Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that criminal guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution withholds best evidence, adverse inferences may be drawn, and a conviction cannot rest on a dubious dying declaration without corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Is a dying declaration sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution withholding the best available evidence?
  • Does medical evidence alone suffice to connect an accused to the commission of an offence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the FIR is lodged with an unexplained delay and material discrepancies exist in the investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Mehmood vs StatePLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-31
  murder convictionocular evidencemedical evidenceSection 540 CrPCwitness testimonycriminal appealappreciation of evidencesentence commutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the High Court's judgment maintaining the appellant's conviction under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for murder, while commuting his death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility of a witness whose statement was not recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the impact of minor discrepancies in ocular accounts, and the weight of medical evidence versus ocular testimony. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was sound. The Court established that Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, empowers trial courts to summon material witnesses regardless of whether their statements were recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that credible ocular evidence takes precedence over medical evidence, and minor discrepancies do not necessitate acquittal. It was also held that the testimony of a relative is not inherently unreliable absent proof of enmity, and that the quality of evidence, rather than quantity, determines the validity of a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court summon a witness under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if their statement was not recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does medical evidence override ocular evidence when the ocular account is found to be trustworthy?
  • Is the testimony of a relative of the deceased inherently unreliable in a murder trial?
  • Do minor discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Mehmood vs Mst. Shazia Azad and others2023 SCMR 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-07
  special oathfamily courtdower and dowryconclusive proofbinding agreementoaths actcivil petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition against concurrent findings of family courts in a suit for dower and dowry articles. The core legal question was whether a party who voluntarily offers to be bound by the special oath of the opposite party under the Oaths Act, 1873, can subsequently resile from that offer after the oath has been taken. The Supreme Court held that once an offer for a special oath is voluntarily made and accepted, it constitutes a binding agreement between the parties, and the evidence given pursuant thereto serves as conclusive proof under Section 11 of the Oaths Act, 1873, precluding the offering party from resiling or challenging the outcome. The key principle laid down is that decisions based on special oaths under sections 8 to 11 of the Oaths Act, 1873, are fully applicable in family proceedings by virtue of Section 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, creating a binding contract from which a party cannot unilaterally withdraw.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party who voluntarily offers to have a case decided on special oath subsequently resile from that offer after the opposite party has taken the oath?
  • Are the provisions of sections 8 to 11 of the Oaths Act, 1873 applicable to proceedings before a Family Court under the Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Does evidence given on special oath operate as conclusive proof against the party who offered to be bound by it?
  • Whether the provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 apply to proceedings before the Family Court in respect of matters covered under Part-I of its Schedule?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Mehmood vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Sectt. II, Sadder, Rawalpindi etc2023 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 22 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service appealdisciplinary proceedingsGovernment Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973natural justiceselective prosecutionapportionment of liabilityfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenged a major penalty of removal from service and recovery of funds imposed on the appellant, a civilian employee, under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973. The core legal questions concerned whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by procedural irregularities, specifically the use of an improper inquiry format, denial of cross-examination, and the discriminatory singling out of the appellant despite the shared responsibility of multiple officers. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the inquiry proceedings were fundamentally flawed due to violations of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 and the principles of natural justice, including the failure to conduct a joint inquiry involving all responsible parties. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the removal from service, modifying the penalty to a reduction in grade and post for three years. It further directed the competent authority to judiciously reapportion the recovery amount among all officers responsible for the omissions. The judgment establishes that selective disciplinary action against one official, while ignoring others equally responsible, constitutes discrimination and violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Does the use of a question-and-answer format in a disciplinary inquiry, without allowing cross-examination, violate the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973?
  • Can a disciplinary authority single out one officer for punishment when multiple tiers of authority share responsibility for the alleged misconduct?
  • Is a disciplinary inquiry conducted against a civilian employee under Army Rules, rather than the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973, sustainable in law?
  • Does the failure to conduct a joint inquiry against all officers responsible for an omission constitute a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Khan vs Deputy Commissioner Haripur & 07 others2023 PHC 414 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-20Read full judgment →
• Sajid Khan and another vs Mst. Ibtesam Shahid and 03 others2023 IHC 428 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-08-22Read full judgment →
• Sajid Iqbal Sheikh vs Adj, Lahore, etc2023 LHC 3270, 2023 MLD 1958, 2023 PLJ Lahore 643 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-07Read full judgment →
• Sajid Iqbal Sheikh vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and others2023 MLD 1958 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-07Read full judgment →
• Sajid Hussain, Malik Muhammad Saleem vs The State, The State etc.2023 LHC 5291, 2024 YLR 1349 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-09
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtmedical evidenceocular testimonypolice investigationsite planCall Data Record
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the murder of a woman. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given significant contradictions between the ocular account, medical evidence, and the investigation process. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court identified fatal flaws, including unexplained delays in FIR registration, inconsistencies in the site plan, contradictions regarding the distance and position of witnesses, and a mismatch between the DNA on the victim's clothes and the blood secured from the crime scene. Furthermore, the Court noted that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's version of the firing incident and that the Call Data Record evidence was inconclusive without voice transcripts. Emphasizing that a single reasonable doubt is sufficient to acquit an accused, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms that withholding material witnesses invites an adverse inference and that ocular testimony must align with forensic and medical findings to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Call Data Record (CDR) sufficient evidence to establish the identity of a mobile phone user without voice transcripts?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce a material witness warrant an adverse inference?
  • What is the legal requirement for the preparation of site plans in criminal investigations under the Police Rules, 1934?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a significant contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular account?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Hussain vs State etc.PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 507 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-31
  benefit of doubtmurder referenceeyewitness credibilitycriminal appealacquittalappreciation of evidencedeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentences awarded to the appellants for the murder of three individuals. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony and the lack of corroborative evidence. The Lahore High Court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with significant doubts. Specifically, the court noted that the alleged eyewitnesses were likely not present at the scene, as they failed to explain critical injuries on the deceased that did not match the prosecution's narrative. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the acquittal of co-accused persons, based on the same unreliable evidence, undermined the entire prosecution story. The forensic evidence regarding the recovery of weapons was also negative. Consequently, the court held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The principle laid down is that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of an accused, the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Is it necessary to have multiple circumstances creating doubt to grant the benefit of doubt to an accused?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused based on unreliable evidence necessitate the acquittal of the remaining appellants?
  • What is the legal consequence when forensic reports regarding crime weapons are negative?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Hussain vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and 3 others2023 CLC 1795 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
• Sajid Hussain Mangran vs The State & another2023 SHC 182 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-15
  Anti-Terrorism Court jurisdictionscheduled offencestransfer of caseuse of firearms in mosqueexclusive jurisdictionSection 23 ATAThird Schedule ATA
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants challenged an order of the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) dismissing their application under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which sought the transfer of their case to an ordinary court. The applicants argued that the incident, involving a land dispute, did not constitute terrorism and that they were elsewhere at the time of the incident. The core legal question was whether an offence involving the use of firearms in a mosque is triable exclusively by the ATC, regardless of whether it meets the definition of 'terrorism' under Section 6 of the Act. The Court held that the ATC correctly retained jurisdiction. It clarified that Clause 4 of the Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the ATC to try specific offences, such as the use of firearms in a place of worship, irrespective of whether those acts satisfy the definition of 'terrorism' under Section 6. The Court affirmed that such offences are triable by the ATC, though the determination of whether the act also constitutes 'terrorism' remains a matter for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the use of firearms in a mosque fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court regardless of whether it constitutes 'terrorism' under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is the question of whether an offence constitutes 'terrorism' a relevant factor for an Anti-Terrorism Court when determining its jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Does Clause 4 of the Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, automatically classify an offence as 'terrorism' under Section 6 of the Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid alias Saji vs The State, etc2023 LHC 2048 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-10
  post-conviction bailsuspension of sentencestatutory right to baildelay in appeallife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for the suspension of sentence and grant of post-conviction bail pending appeal. The petitioner, convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment, sought relief on the statutory ground that his appeal had remained undecided for over four and a half years. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the statutory provisions governing the delay in the disposal of criminal appeals. The Court held that the petitioner had earned a statutory right to be released on bail, as the appeal had not been decided within the two-year period stipulated by the relevant law. Consequently, the Court suspended the operation of the impugned judgment and directed the petitioner's release on bail. The key principle established is that under Section 426(1A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an appellate court is required to release a convict on bail if their appeal has not been decided within two years of conviction, absent specific recorded reasons to the contrary.

  Questions settled

  • Does a convict have a statutory right to bail if their appeal against a life sentence remains undecided for more than two years?
  • Under what circumstances is an appellate court required to release a convict on bail pending the disposal of their appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid alias Saji vs State, etc.PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 806 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-10
  suspension of sentencestatutory baildelay in appealimprisonment for lifecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a criminal miscellaneous application filed in a pending criminal appeal, whereby the petitioner, convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the trial court, sought suspension of his sentence and release on bail on the statutory ground of delay in the decision of his appeal. The core legal question is whether a convict whose appeal against life imprisonment has remained undecided for more than two years without any fault on their part is entitled to bail as a statutory right under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the petitioner has earned an indefeasible statutory right to be released on bail under proviso (c) of Section 426(1A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the appeal has been pending for over four years without the appellant's fault. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court is legally mandated to release a convicted person on bail if their appeal against life imprisonment is not decided within the statutory period, unless reasons are recorded to direct otherwise.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a convict sentenced to life imprisonment is entitled to bail as a statutory right if their appeal is not decided within two years?
  • Does the pendency of an appeal for more than four years without the appellant's fault constitute sufficient ground for suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Ali vs The State2023 MLD 766 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-12
  criminal appealmurdersolitary witnessocular evidenceballistic reportrecovery of crime weaponQanun-e-Shahadatpost-conviction appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal arises from a judgment of the Sessions Judge (MCTC), Panjgur, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Waqar. The core legal question was whether the solitary statement of an eye-witness, corroborated by medical evidence, recoveries, and a positive ballistic report, was sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder. The Balochistan High Court held that the conviction was well-founded, dismissing the appeal and upholding the trial court's judgment. The key principles laid down are that a criminal conviction can lawfully be based on the solitary, dependable testimony of a single natural eye-witness without requiring quantity over quality, and that the recovery of a crime weapon on the accused's pointation coupled with a positive ballistic report and corroborating medical evidence provides sufficient incriminating proof to maintain a murder conviction under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction for murder be based solely on the testimony of a single eye-witness?
  • Whether the recovery of a crime weapon on the pointation of an accused is admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does a positive ballistic report matching the crime empty to the recovered weapon provide sufficient corroboration to sustain a murder conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Ali and another vs The State2023 YLR 1675 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-23
  jail appealmurderdelay in FIRbenefit of doubtcorroborationwitness contradictionsacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The core legal issue was whether the prosecution proved its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt in light of an unexplained fourteen-hour delay in lodging the FIR, significant contradictions in witness testimonies, unproven motive, and absence of corroborative physical evidence. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR creates suspicion of consultation and false implication, casting severe doubt on the prosecution's narrative. Furthermore, where the appellant was merely assigned presence without any recovery or direct act of killing attributed to him, and prosecution witnesses directly contradicted each other on material facts such as the scene of crime, the charge remains unproven. The court reiterated that reasonable doubt arising from any single circumstance entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on presence at the scene without recovery or independent corroborative evidence?
  • Whether material contradictions among prosecution witnesses regarding the place of occurrence entitle the accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Saira Bibi vs District Education Officer (F), District Uzaffarabad Azad2023 PLJ AJ&K 50 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Saima Sajid vs Returning Officer, PP-259, Rahim Yar Khan2023 PLJ Lahore 396 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-26Read full judgment →
• Saima Nazir vs Guardian Judge (IV), Lahore and another2023 LHC 354 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-02Read full judgment →
• Saifullah vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1466 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-09-12
  narcotic substancessafe custodychain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of eight kilograms of Charas. The core legal question before the Balochistan High Court was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the safe custody and unbroken chain of custody of the narcotic samples from recovery to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Court held that material contradictions between the Investigating Officer's oral testimony and the documentary record regarding the delivery of samples, alongside non-compliance with Rule 4 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 concerning the mode of dispatch, broke the chain of custody and compromised the reliability of the chemical examiner's report. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a broken chain of custody in narcotic cases render the chemical examiner's report unreliable?
  • Whether non-compliance with the dispatch procedure under Rule 4 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 vitiates a narcotics conviction?
  • Must the prosecution prove every link in the custody of narcotics from recovery to the laboratory beyond a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifullah son Mansoor Khan vs The State2023 SHC 188 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-02
  narcoticschain of custodybenefit of doubtcriminal appealsafe transmissionacquittalmashirnama
  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 120 grams of charas. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and safe transmission of the recovered narcotics to the chemical examiner, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and transmission of the contraband, noting material contradictions in the evidence regarding the preparation of the mashirnama and the failure to associate independent witnesses from a populated area. Emphasizing that any missing link in the chain of custody in narcotics cases is fatal to the prosecution's case, the Court ruled that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Is the failure of the prosecution to prove the safe custody and transmission of narcotics to the chemical examiner fatal to the conviction?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses in a populated area during a narcotics recovery create a reasonable doubt?
  • Is it necessary for the prosecution to have multiple infirmities in its case for the accused to be entitled to the benefit of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif-Ur-Rehman vs Secretary and another2023 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 5 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2022-07-05
  service appeallimitationcondonation of delaysecond departmental appealremoval from serviceunauthorized absencedispensing with inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed an appeal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 against an order dated 11.02.2015 removing him from service for unauthorized absence. After receiving no response to his initial departmental appeal filed in February 2015, the appellant filed a second departmental appeal in November 2020, which was rejected on 21.12.2020, leading to the filing of the service appeal in January 2021. The core legal questions involved the computation of limitation, the maintainability of a second departmental appeal to extend time, and the validity of dispensing with a regular inquiry under the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973. The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal as heavily time-barred by over five and a half years, holding that a second departmental appeal does not extend the period of limitation, that non-response from a departmental authority amounts to a decision triggering the 90-day statutory period, and that every day of delay must be explained with cogent reasons. The Tribunal further held that the competent authority rightly dispensed with a regular inquiry upon the appellant's chronic absenteeism and failure to respond to show-cause notices published in newspapers.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of a second departmental appeal extend or compute a fresh period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Whether non-response by a departmental authority to a departmental appeal within the statutory 90-day period amounts to a decision for the purpose of limitation?
  • Can the competent authority dispense with a regular inquiry and proceed with a show-cause notice in cases of unauthorized absence under the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973?
  • Is an employee removed from service for disciplinary reasons entitled to pension and gratuity on medical grounds due to drug addiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif-Ul-Mulk vs The State2023 PTD 143 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-08
  post-arrest bailcash securitymodification of bail ordersales tax evasionsurety bondabsconder
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from an application filed to modify a bail order dated 23.09.2019, wherein the applicant was granted bail subject to depositing 25% of the alleged evaded amount of Sales Tax in cash with the Nazir of the Court and furnishing solvent surety. The applicant sought a modification to furnish property documents instead of cash, citing financial inability and health issues, while the prosecution opposed modification. The core legal question was whether a criminal court can compel an accused to deposit security in cash as a condition for bail. The Court held that demanding cash security is alien to criminal jurisprudence and cannot be forced upon an accused, permitting instead the furnishing of urban property documents equivalent to the required amount. The key principle laid down is that while courts may require security or surety for bail, forcing a cash deposit is unjustified under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and property documents may substitute cash security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal court can legally force an accused person to deposit security in the shape of cash as a condition for bail?
  • Can a bail order passed by consent of the parties be subsequently modified regarding the mode of furnishing security?
  • What are the consequences under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if an accused becomes an absconder after being released on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah vs The State and 6 others2023 YLR 264 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-15Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah vs Muhammad Shafique Chief Officer(DC,R.Y.Khan)Returning2023 LHC 2165 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Saif Ullah Khan vs Mirza Ali Khan & 03 others2023 PHC 550 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-09Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah Khan through Legal heirs vs Zia Ullah Khan2023 YLR 78 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-09Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah and another vs The State and others2023 YLR 24 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-23
  murderchance witnessbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalappreciation of evidenceconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a criminal revision for enhancement of sentence and a petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of a co-accused. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the reliance on witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was not natural and whose testimony was introduced after a significant delay. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, finding the eye-witnesses to be 'chance witnesses' whose belated introduction rendered their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the Court found the alleged motive unproven and the forensic evidence regarding the weapon recovery inconclusive due to procedural lapses. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the petitions for sentence enhancement and leave to appeal against the co-accused's acquittal. The key principle laid down is that in criminal cases, the benefit of any doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, and evidence from chance witnesses without justifiable explanation is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be relied upon without a convincing explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution relies on eye-witnesses introduced through a supplementary statement after a significant delay?
  • Should the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused when the forensic evidence regarding weapon recovery is procedurally flawed?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif Power Limited vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law, Civil Secretariat Islamabad and others2023 SCMR 714 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-02
  SECPinspection of books of accountinvestigation into company affairsCompanies Ordinance 1984ultra viresregulatory complianceadministrative powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 arose from an Islamabad High Court judgment that dismissed the appellant company's writ petition challenging an inspection notice and order issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP). The central legal question before the Supreme Court was determining the distinction, scope, and nature between the SECP's administrative power of inspection under Section 231 and its power of investigation under Sections 263 and 265 of the Companies Ordinance 1984. The Supreme Court held that an inspection under Section 231 is an administrative power strictly confined to checking books of account and related financial records to ensure regulatory compliance, whereas an investigation under Section 265 involves probing allegations of fraud, misfeasance, or mismanagement and entails broader consequences, mandatory show-cause notice requirements, and wider obligations of assistance. Finding that SECP had essentially initiated an investigation under the guise of an inspection, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and declared the SECP's order illegal and ultra vires.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal distinction between the power of inspection under Section 231 and the power of investigation under Sections 263 and 265 of the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  • Does an inspection under Section 231 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 permit SECP to investigate allegations of fraud or mismanagement in the general affairs of a company?
  • Is SECP required to issue a mandatory show-cause notice before initiating an investigation under Section 265(b) of the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Saidf-ur-Rehman vs Ijaz and another2023 SCP 300, 2023 SCMR 2133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-20
  decree-holderexecution petitionwarrant of possessionexecuting courtcivil revisiondeclaration suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a civil revision and upholding lower court orders that issued a warrant of possession against the appellant in execution proceedings. The appellant had originally filed a suit for a declaration that the transfer of his house to respondent No. 1 and subsequently to respondent No. 2 was void. The trial court dismissed the suit, but determined the actual market price of the house, directed the respondents to pay a remaining balance, and declared respondent No. 1 as owner. Respondent No. 1 later filed an execution petition, leading to the issuance of a warrant of possession. The core legal questions involved whether a defendant in a dismissed suit can qualify as a decree-holder to initiate execution, and whether an executing court can grant possession when the decree itself does not award it. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a defendant in whose favour rights are adjudicated can indeed be a decree-holder, but emphasized that an executing court cannot go behind the decree or award a relief of possession not granted by the decree. The appeal was allowed and the lower orders were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a defendant in a suit that was ultimately dismissed qualify as a decree-holder entitled to initiate execution proceedings?
  • Whether an executing court can go behind the terms of a decree to grant a relief of possession that was never awarded in the judgment?
  • Under what exceptions can an executing court look beyond the decree or examine the underlying judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Wazir and another vs The State and others2023 SCMR 1144, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-08
  narcoticssafe custody of sampleschemical examinerbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealCNSA 1997acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged the judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding their conviction and sentence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the recovery of narcotics. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully established the safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered sample parcels to the forensic laboratory beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the appellants, holding that the unexplained delay in sending samples to the chemical examiner, coupled with the failure of the prosecution to produce key witnesses such as the Malkhana Moharrar and the delivering constable to establish safe custody and transmission, created serious doubts in the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that failure to prove safe custody and safe transmission of narcotics samples, along with unexplained delays in their transmission, entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt and results in acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending sample parcels to the chemical examiner vitiate the conviction in narcotics cases?
  • Is the non-production of the Malkhana Moharrar and the constable who delivered the sample fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does failure to establish safe custody and safe transmission of narcotics samples entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Rehman vs The State2023 PHC 520, 2025 YLR 632 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-07
  criminal appealtriple murderocular evidencemedical evidencebenefit of doubtabscondencefalse implicationappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences imposed by the trial court regarding a triple murder case under Sections 302, 324, 427, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged discrepancies in the ocular account and medical evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court identified significant contradictions: the eyewitnesses’ presence was doubtful, the FIR registration process was shrouded in mystery, and the medical evidence conflicted with the ocular testimony regarding the location of the injuries. Furthermore, the absence of blood at the alleged crime scene undermined the prosecution's narrative. The court emphasized that courts must not be swayed by the number of casualties or accused, but must rigorously scrutinize evidence. It held that motive can be a double-edged sword, potentially serving as a basis for false implication, and that abscondence alone is insufficient to prove guilt. Consequently, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the unexplained abscondence of an accused person constitute conclusive proof of guilt?
  • Can a motive for a crime also serve as a basis for the false implication of the accused?
  • What is the legal effect when there is a significant conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular account of an occurrence?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove the presence of eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Rasool vs Maqbool Ahmed etc2023 SCP 157, 2023 SCMR 1390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-17
  specific performanceunsigned agreementvalid contractfree consentpart performanceagreement for sale
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 18.10.1994, which was decreed by the Trial Court, partly modified in appeal by the Additional District Judge, and restored by the Lahore High Court through a revision petition. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether an unsigned written agreement for sale can be considered valid and legally enforceable. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that while a written agreement generally requires the signatures of the parties to show free consent, an unsigned written agreement can still be valid and enforceable if the party relying upon it pleads and proves the necessary ingredients of a valid contract through cogent evidence, and demonstrates part performance and mutual intention to be bound. The key principle laid down is that the absence of a signature on a written agreement does not automatically render it void if oral consent, valid consideration, part payment, and the intention of the parties to be bound are established by reliable evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unsigned written agreement for sale can be considered valid and legally enforceable?
  • What are the essential elements required to prove the validity of an agreement under the Contract Act, 1871?
  • Can part performance and acceptance of consideration validate an unsigned written agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Nabi vs Ajmal Khan and another2023 SCP 308, 2024 SCMR 464, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-21
  post-arrest bailabscondencerule of consistencyacquittal of co-accusedmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including murder and attempted murder. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency with co-accused who have been acquitted, when the only remaining allegation against the petitioner is prolonged abscondence. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The ratio laid down is that where co-accused assigned similar generalized roles have been acquitted and the bulk of the prosecution case has dissolved, abscondence alone cannot be considered in isolation to keep an accused behind bars indefinitely, especially when no incriminating recovery has been made from him and his case falls within the rule of consistency.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency when co-accused with similar roles have been acquitted?
  • Can prolonged abscondence be considered in isolation to deny post-arrest bail indefinitely?
  • Does abscondence alone warrant the continued incarceration of an accused when no incriminating recovery has been made from his possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Ali Shah son of Said Ahmad Shah vs Bakht Zada & others2023 PHC 173, 2024 MLD 675 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-08Read full judgment →
• Said Afzal vs The State2023 YLR 2110 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-14
  unlicensed armsbenefit of the doubtrecovery witnessnon-production of case propertyconfessional statementcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013 for possessing an unlicensed Kalashnikov, resulting in a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of prosecution evidence regarding recovery, the non-production of case property, missing daily diary entries, and the legal validity of a judicial confession. The Peshawar High Court held that material flaws in the prosecution case, including a private recovery witness failing to support the recovery, the failure to produce the case property in court, missing departure and arrival diary entries, and procedural lapses in recording the confessional statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, created multiple reasonable doubts. The court laid down the principle that even a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right. The appeal was consequently allowed, the conviction set aside, and the appellant acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-production of case property during the trial constitutes a fatal dent in the prosecution case?
  • Does the failure of a private marginal recovery witness to support the prosecution version vitiate the recovery when police witnesses depose in its favor?
  • Whether mechanical compliance with procedural requirements in recording a confessional statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 renders the confession involuntary?
  • Is an absconding co-accused entitled to benefit of an acquittal granted to a co-appellant who contested the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Haroon Ali Syed vs Additional District Judge and others2023 MLD 2073 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-12Read full judgment →
• Sahib Gul & 03 Others vs Soucha Gul & Others2023 PHC 187 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-05Read full judgment →
• Sahib and another vs The State2023 MLD 357 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-29
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtpolice encounteracquittalappreciation of evidencematerial contradictionsreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Sections 398 and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an alleged police encounter. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions, including ineffective firing despite a ten-minute encounter, the absence of ballistic reports for recovered weapons, and conflicting witness testimonies regarding the recovery proceedings. Furthermore, the appellants had been acquitted in related off-shoot cases. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the surviving appellant. The judgment reaffirms the axiomatic principle that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a matter of grace; if any circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Is the benefit of doubt in a criminal case a matter of grace or a right of the accused?
  • Does the failure to produce ballistic reports for recovered weapons undermine the prosecution's case in an encounter charge?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Saghir Ahmed vs The State and others2023 SCMR 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-28
  sodomybenefit of doubtmedical evidenceforensic reportocular accountcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction under Section 377 PPC for the offence of sodomy. The petitioner was initially sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment by the Trial Court, which was reduced to five years by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the ocular account was sufficiently corroborated by medical and forensic evidence to sustain a conviction. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the medical report showed no signs of physical trauma or laceration, and the Punjab Forensic Science Agency report was inconclusive, stating only that the victim 'may have been' victimized. The Court held that when two interpretations of evidence are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. Applying the principle that even a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right rather than grace, the Court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, the conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted.

  Read full judgment →