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.

• Saghir Ahmed vs State and othersPLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  sodomybenefit of doubtreasonable doubtmedical evidenceforensic reportcriminal appealacquittalocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition challenged the conviction of the petitioner for sodomy under Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which had been upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, given the discrepancies between the ocular account and the medical and forensic evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the medical examination of the victim revealed no physical trauma or signs of struggle, and the report from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency was inconclusive, failing to provide a definite finding. Applying the established principle that if two views are possible on the evidence, the view favorable to the accused must be adopted, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and acquitted the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inconclusive forensic report constitute a ground for giving the benefit of the doubt to an accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt?
  • Must the view favorable to the accused be adopted when two views are possible on the evidence adduced?
  Read full judgment →
• Safia Bano Hashmi vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Information and another2023 IHC 284 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-12Read full judgment →
• Saffron Event Lawns (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Khalid Mahmood and another2023 IHC 258 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-30Read full judgment →
• Safdar Yar Khan, etc vs Mohammad Iqbal Khan, etc2023 LHC 1048 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-23Read full judgment →
• Safdar Shah vs The State2023 SHC 606 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-26Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali vs Member (Judicial-III), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another2023 YLR 2594 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-09Read full judgment →
• Safaidullah and others vs Gul Dad2023 CLC 708 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• Saeedullah vs Lal Sher2023 PHC 108 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-10Read full judgment →
• Saeedullah vs Lal Sher and others2023 PLD Peshawar 110, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 1053 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-10
  juvenile justiceanti-terrorism courtjurisdictionoverriding effectspecial lawschild rightsfair trialcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the order of the Anti-Terrorism Court dismissing the petitioner's application for the transfer of his trial to the Juvenile Court and the deletion of Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether an Anti-Terrorism Court or a Juvenile Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to try a juvenile accused of an offence of terrorism under the interplay of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The Peshawar High Court held that the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, being the later statute with an overriding non-obstante clause and specific safeguards for juveniles, takes precedence over the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court laid down the principle that a juvenile accused of committing a terrorism-related offence must be tried exclusively by the Juvenile Court established under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, ensuring that critical substantive and procedural safeguards, including rehabilitative measures and protection from capital punishment, are fully upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Anti-Terrorism Court or the Juvenile Court has jurisdiction to try a juvenile accused of an offence of terrorism?
  • Do the provisions of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 override the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 in cases involving juvenile offenders?
  • What is the legal effect of the expiry of a temporary ordinance on permanent statutes and previous notifications?
  • Are juvenile offenders accused of terrorism-related offences exempt from capital punishment under the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeeda Bibi vs Judge Family Court, Muzaffarabad and 2 others2023 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 38 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-03-08Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ullah, Yar Muhammad, Inayat Ullah vs The State and another2023 SCP 155, 2023 SCMR 1397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-04
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationfurther inquirymurderous assaultcriminal justice administrationSection 324 PPCconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that cancelled the petitioners' post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were accused of a murderous assault, but the Supreme Court noted that the FIR attributed only a general role to them, and the complainant sustained injuries on non-vital body parts. Furthermore, the medical report was contradictory regarding the nature of the injuries, and the recovery of numerous empty casings suggested a lack of intent to kill despite the opportunity. The Court held that when two views are possible from the evidence, the view favorable to the accused must be adopted. Additionally, the Court emphasized that bail cancellation requires proof of misuse of liberty or specific grounds as established in Samiullah v. Laiq Zada, which were absent here. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the case fell within the ambit of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting further inquiry, and restored the petitioners' bail.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a court decline the cancellation of bail even if the initial bail-granting order is found to be unsustainable?
  • Does the presence of injuries on non-vital parts of the body and the recovery of numerous empty casings create a case for further inquiry regarding the intent to kill under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What are the established guidelines for the cancellation of bail in criminal cases?
  • Is the liberty of a person, guaranteed under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, subject to curtailment based on vague allegations?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Rabi Arain vs Province of Sindh & Others2023 SHC 1188 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-18Read full judgment →
• Saeed Pardesi vs The State2023 SC AJK 76 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-11-03
  narcoticsControl of Narcotics Substances Actarresting officer rankindependent witnessesdelay in chemical examinationmitigating circumstancecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court dismissing the convict-appellant's appeal regarding a narcotics conviction under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 2001. The core legal questions involved whether the violation of section 21 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 2001 vitiated the trial, whether the non-association of independent witnesses violated section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the delayed submission of the sample to the chemical examiner was fatal to the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that procedural irregularities regarding the rank of the arresting officer are curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 stands excluded in narcotics recoveries by virtue of section 25 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 2001, and that a delay in sending samples to the laboratory does not vitiate the trial but can serve as a mitigating circumstance. The Court partly accepted the appeal, maintaining the conviction but reducing the sentence of imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the violation of section 21 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 2001 renders the entire trial vitiated?
  • Do the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to searches and arrests made under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 2001?
  • Is the delayed submission of the narcotic parcel to the Chemical Examiner detrimental to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Gul and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 823 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-18
  pre-arrest bailfurther statementSection 161 Cr.P.C.false implicationtentative assessmentfurther inquirycriminal justice system
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought confirmation of their pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to confirmation of bail given that they were not named in the FIR and were only implicated through a belated further statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the applicants' implication in a supplementary statement recorded ten days after the incident, without assigning any specific active role, raised reasonable grounds to believe the implication was a result of deliberation and consultation. Relying on established precedents, the Court found the prosecution's case against the applicants to be one of further inquiry. The Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the object of bail is to secure attendance at trial, not to be punitive, and that the liberty of a citizen is a guaranteed right. The key principle laid down is that a supplementary statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. cannot be equated with an FIR and, when used to implicate additional accused belatedly, may indicate false involvement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to implicate additional accused persons not named in the FIR?
  • Is the object of bail in the criminal justice system punitive or preventive?
  • Does the belated implication of an accused in a further statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed vs Province Of Sindh & Others2023 SHC 930 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-23Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed S/O Habib Ahmed vs The State2023 SHC 582 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-19Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed Bhayo and others vs Ali Sher2023 SHC 281 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-20
  first information reportex-officio justice of peacecustodial deathcognizable offencequashing of orderpolice torturestatutory dutyinquiry report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, directing the recording of the respondent's statement and incorporation of a First Information Report if a cognizable offence was disclosed. The core legal question concerned whether the Justice of Peace acted lawfully in directing the registration of a case despite a magistrate's inquiry report suggesting the deceased died by suicide in police custody. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that upon disclosure of a cognizable offence, the police are under a statutory obligation under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to register an FIR without conducting a mini-trial or hearing the accused. The court established that the Justice of Peace possesses the administrative jurisdiction to direct the registration of a criminal case when local police fail to perform their statutory duty, and that inquiry reports by magistrates do not bar the registration of an FIR where serious allegations of custodial violence and torture are leveled against law enforcement officials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the police are under a statutory obligation to register an FIR upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence?
  • Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace direct the registration of a criminal case when the police refuse to record a complaint?
  • Does a magistrate's inquiry report into a custodial death bar the registration of an FIR based on allegations of police torture?
  • Is a proposed accused entitled to a hearing at the stage of recording the first information report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadoro Maitlo vs The State2023 SHC 1136 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-04
  vicarious liabilitymurderfirearm injurybenefit of doubtcriminal appealmedical evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pano Akil, convicting the appellant Sadoro Maitlo under sections 302(b), 324, and 337F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the appellant's conviction for murder under the theory of vicarious liability and his conviction for causing firearm injuries were sustainable given contradictions between ocular and medical evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's common object or vicarious liability for the murder, as he was not alleged to have fired at the deceased, and medical evidence cast doubt on the specific attribution of the single firearm injury sustained by the injured witness. Consequently, the court set aside the murder conviction under section 302(b), maintained the convictions under sections 324 and 337F(v), and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. The key principle laid down is that vicarious liability cannot be sustained without convincing evidence connecting the accused to the fatal act, and vague attributions regarding firearm injuries amidst multiple alleged assailants create a benefit of doubt requiring reversal of capital convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether vicarious liability for murder can be sustained against an accused when ocular testimony fails to attribute any overt act or firearm shot towards the deceased?
  • Can a conviction for a firearm injury be safely maintained under section 324 PPC when multiple accused are alleged to have fired but the injured witness sustains only a single entry-exit wound without clear attribution?
  • Whether contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number and nature of injuries warrant the setting aside of a murder conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadique Sabzoi vs The State2023 YLR 987 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-18
  murderbenefit of the doubtcontradictions in evidencedelayed FIRautopsy delaytracker dogsweapon recovery acquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including Section 302(b) for Qat-l-e-Amd, and sentencing him to death and imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt through trustworthy ocular and corroboratory evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt due to unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and conducting the autopsy, material contradictions among eye-witnesses, doubtful foot-tracking evidence, and the appellant's prior acquittal in a connected weapon recovery case. The court laid down the principle that multiple inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative, coupled with post-incident deliberations and suspicious circumstances regarding the identification of the accused, create a strong reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting post-mortem examinations creates a dent in the prosecution's case regarding the presence of eye-witnesses?
  • Can the prosecution rely on foot-tracking evidence by tracker dogs when the eye-witnesses already claimed to have recognized the accused at the scene of the crime?
  • What is the legal effect of an accused's final acquittal in a connected weapon recovery case upon the main criminal trial?
  • Does a previous direct complaint filed against other persons and subsequently compromised cast serious doubt on the veracity of the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq vs Hizbullah and another2023 YLR 1027 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-17
  post-arrest bailmedical groundsStanding Medical Boardabscondenceexpeditious trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail petition was filed by petitioner Sadiq in FIR No.337 dated 25.03.2016 under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the rejection of his earlier bail application on merits. The petitioner sought bail on medical grounds based on a Standing Medical Board report detailing post-surgery back pain and sciatica. The Peshawar High Court examined whether the petitioner's medical condition justified post-arrest bail. The Court observed that the medical report did not classify his ailment as life-threatening or unmanageable while in custody. Furthermore, jail authorities were facilitating necessary specialized treatment at a public hospital. The Court also highlighted that the petitioner had suppressed or delayed raising the medical ground during earlier bail applications after a period of abscondence. Consequently, the High Court held that discretion to grant bail on medical grounds could not be exercised, dismissed the petition, directed the jail superintendent to ensure continued specialized treatment, and requested the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail on medical grounds can be granted if the illness is not hazardous to life and treatment is being adequately provided by jail authorities?
  • Can a petitioner seek bail on medical grounds in a second round of bail petitions when such a ground was available but not raised in earlier bail proceedings on merits?
  • Does a direction for specialized medical treatment of an accused in custody preclude the grant of post-arrest bail on medical grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Adeel vs Secretary (Mgt.Cust-Iv), Federal Board. Of Revenue, Islamabad and 3 others2023 PLJ Tr.C. (Service) 111 · Federal Service Tribunal
  contract employeetermination of servicemisconductdue processregular inquiryservice tribunalshow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, challenging the termination of the appellant's service, a contract employee, on grounds of alleged misconduct without a formal inquiry. The core legal question was whether a contract employee's services can be terminated for misconduct without following due process, specifically a regular inquiry. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the termination order was illegal and void ab initio because the department failed to provide the appellant with a show-cause notice, charge sheet, or a fair opportunity to defend himself against the allegations. The Tribunal set aside the termination order and directed the department to reinstate the appellant and conduct de novo proceedings in accordance with the law. The key principle laid down is that while a contract employee's services may be terminated in accordance with the terms of their appointment, any termination predicated on allegations of misconduct—as opposed to simple performance issues—requires a regular inquiry and adherence to the Efficiency and Discipline Rules to avoid stigmatizing the employee without due process.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contract employee be terminated for misconduct without a regular inquiry?
  • Is there a legal distinction between termination for unsatisfactory performance and termination for misconduct regarding contract employees?
  • Does a termination order based on misconduct without a fair opportunity to defend constitute an illegal act?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadia Siddiqui and others vs Adnan Andalaib Siddiqui and others2023 CLC 887 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-24Read full judgment →
• Sadia Imad vs PM Secretariat etc.2023 PLJ Tr. C. (Services) 32 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2022-05-20
  service appealcompulsory retirementunauthorized absenceextra ordinary leavecause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal was filed before the Federal Service Tribunal by the appellant challenging an order imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement and treating the period of unauthorized absence as Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL). The core legal question was whether the appellant had a valid cause of action when the relief claimed regarding regularization and retirement had effectively been addressed by the impugned order, and whether treating an absence period as EOL constitutes a penalty. The Tribunal held that the appeal lacked a cause of action because the appellant was treated as in service until the date of compulsory retirement and the treatment of the absence period as EOL without pay is not a punishment, as settled by precedent. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether treating a period of unauthorized absence as Extra Ordinary Leave constitutes a penalty?
  • Does an employee have a cause of action to challenge an order that already grants the substantive relief sought?
  • Can the period of absence from duty be treated as Extra Ordinary Leave without pay by the employer?
  Read full judgment →
• Saddam Hussain vs The State2023 F.S.C 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2023-11-16
  dacoity with murdercriminal appealremand of casedeath sentence reasonsOffences against Property Ordinanceidentification paradeHudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two criminal appeals arising from a single judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court convicting the appellants under Section 396/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for dacoity with murder and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether the offence of dacoity under Section 396 can be sustained when only three accused persons are involved, and whether the trial court erred in failing to provide reasons for not awarding the death sentence under Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Federal Shariat Court held that since Section 396 requires five or more persons for dacoity, a conviction thereunder for three persons was erroneous, and that the trial court failed to record reasons for withholding the death sentence as mandated by law. Consequently, the court accepted the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for rewriting the judgment in accordance with law. The key principle laid down is that a trial court convicting an accused of an offence punishable with death must explicitly state its reasons for awarding a lesser sentence as mandated by Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that the statutory threshold of five persons must be met to constitute dacoity under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code for dacoity with murder be sustained when fewer than five persons are involved?
  • Is a trial court legally bound to state reasons in its judgment when it imposes a sentence other than death for an offence punishable with death?
  • What is the proper course of action for an appellate court when a trial court fails to record mandatory reasons under Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • How does Section 20 of The Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 apply when haraabah is not liable to hadd punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadar alias Sadaruddin and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 874 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-27
  criminal jail appealmurderocular testimonymedical corroborationrelated witnessesminor contradictionsdefence evidenceimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentencing them to imprisonment for life along with compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution case was that the appellants, duly armed, along with co-accused came to the land of the complainant party and, upon instigation, fired at the deceased, causing fatal injuries, before fleeing the scene. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related eye-witnesses, the effect of minor contradictions in ocular testimony, the corroboration of ocular evidence with medical evidence, and the reliability of defence evidence. The High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through trustworthy ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence, and that minor discrepancies and the close relationship of witnesses do not discredit their testimony. The court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal, laying down that criminal cases must be decided on the totality of circumstances rather than isolated contradictions, and that the relationship of witnesses to a victim does not render them interested witnesses in the absence of pre-existing enmity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased in the absence of proved enmity?
  • Does a minor contradiction in the prosecution's evidence render the entire case doubtful?
  • Whether contradictory defence evidence failing to establish a plea of alibi during investigation can be relied upon?
  • Is a conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when supported by consistent ocular testimony and corroborating medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sache Dino through L.Rs vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary Land2023 YLR 1333 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-05Read full judgment →
• Sabira Bibi, Etc vs Mst. Safura Jan, Etc2023 LHC 6830 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-07Read full judgment →
• Sabir vs The State2023 YLR 1862 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-14
  pre-arrest bailnon-prohibitory clausefurther inquirycriminal intimidationhouse trespassbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Sabir, in relation to FIR No. 322/2021, involving allegations of house trespass, assault, and intimidation. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries sustained by the complainant, the non-prohibitory nature of the offenses charged, and the existence of a prior civil dispute regarding property ownership. The Court held that the case required further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the injuries were on non-vital parts of the body, no weapons were used by the applicant, and the offenses charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim bail. The key principle laid down is that where the alleged offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause and the case requires further inquiry, the grant of bail is appropriate, provided the applicant does not misuse the concession or tamper with evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a case requires further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the alleged injuries are on non-vital parts of the body and no weapon was used?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the offenses charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court take action against an accused or their surety under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the concession of bail is misused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain vs The State, etc2023 LHC 6503, 2024 MLD 886 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-13
  criminal revisioncall data recorddue processfair trialunused materialsummoning documentsrecovery memoright to defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge declining the petitioner's request for a copy of the Call Data Record (CDR) mentioned in the recovery memo but not initially annexed with the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether an accused is entitled to obtain copies of unused or un-appended material like a CDR during trial to prepare a fair defence. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court can summon any document essential for an inquiry or trial at any stage under section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the fundamental right to due process and a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 entitles the accused to receive such documents well in time to avoid surprise evidence. The court laid down the principle that prosecution material, even if unused, must be made accessible to the accused if essential for preparing a defence, subject only to privileged police diaries under section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court summon a document not annexed with the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at a later stage of the trial?
  • Is an accused entitled to obtain a copy of a Call Data Record mentioned in a recovery memo even if the prosecution does not rely upon it as part of its primary case?
  • How does the right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 affect the disclosure of prosecution material to the defence?
  • What are the legal consequences under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when a party refuses to produce a document upon notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain vs Sajid Pervazi Minhas and others2023 IHC 420 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-19Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain and others vs Mehboob Hussain and others2023 YLR 118 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-25Read full judgment →
• Sabeen Asghar and others vs Province of The Punjab and others2023 PLD Lahore 416 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-20
  maternity leavesafe motherhoodfundamental rightscontractual employeesconstitutional petitionwrit of mandamusright to lifehuman dignitygender discrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by female contractual employees seeking a writ of mandamus for the grant of paid maternity leave after their request was verbally refused by the respondent authority based on the Internship/Retainership Policy, 2014. The core legal question was whether the right to safe motherhood and maternity leave constitutes a fundamental right under the Constitution, overriding restrictive administrative policies that lack provisions for it. The Lahore High Court held that safe motherhood is an integral component of the right to life under Article 9, as well as being protected under Articles 14(1) and 25 of the Constitution, making the right to maternity leave a fundamental right that cannot be denied to working women regardless of their contractual status. The court established that administrative policies or contracts inconsistent with fundamental rights are void under Article 8(2), and ordered that working women are entitled to paid maternity leave without negative career impacts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right to safe motherhood and maternity leave constitutes a fundamental right under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution be maintained by contractual employees for the enforcement of fundamental rights?
  • Does an administrative policy denying maternity leave to female employees violate the guarantees of human dignity and equality under Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution?
  • Are state authorities and employers prohibited from enforcing internal rules or policies that abridge fundamental rights pursuant to Article 8 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabahat Ahmed S/O Basharat Ahmed vs The State Through PG Sindh2023 SHC 138 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-18
  pre-arrest bailprotective bailconcurrent jurisdictionalternate remedybypassing lower courtinherent jurisdictionAhmadi sect
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought pre-arrest bail directly from the High Court in a criminal case registered under Sections 298-B, 298-C, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, bypassing the Court of Sessions due to alleged apprehensions regarding his safety as he belongs to the Ahmadi sect. The State and the complainant opposed the application, arguing that the alternate remedy before the lower court should have been exhausted first and that the applicant had already been regularly appearing before the trial court without incident. The Sindh High Court held that where two courts possess concurrent jurisdiction, a litigant must first approach the court of lower grade as a matter of legal propriety, and extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass ordinary remedies without valid grounds of gross miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the High Court declined to grant direct pre-arrest bail but converted the application into a protective pre-arrest bail for twenty days to enable the applicant to surrender before the competent trial court, while directing local police to provide security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petitioner can directly approach the High Court for pre-arrest bail by bypassing the Court of Sessions when both courts have concurrent jurisdiction?
  • Can the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked as an alternative or additional remedy to bypass ordinary criminal procedure?
  • Whether apprehension of danger to life justifies bypassing the ordinary forum of first instance when the accused has been regularly appearing before the trial court without fear?
  Read full judgment →
• Saba Sarwar vs Government of Punjab and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 245 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-21
  writ petitionrecruitment policyvested righterroneous advertisementmerit listconstitutional jurisdictionadministrative error
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order reconsidering the petitioner's appointment as an Elementary School Educator (ESE). The core legal question was whether a candidate acquires a vested right to a position when their appointment is based on an erroneous merit list resulting from an incorrect advertisement and a violation of the Recruitment Policy, 2016-17. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appointment was invalid as it stemmed from a process that violated established government policy. The court established the principle that no vested right accrues to a candidate by virtue of an erroneous merit list or appointment process, even if the error is attributable to administrative officials rather than the candidate. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction to protect an appointment derived from a flawed recruitment process, especially while an inquiry into the irregularities was pending. The court emphasized that administrative errors in recruitment do not create legal entitlements for the beneficiaries of such errors.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate acquire a vested right to a position if their appointment is based on an erroneous merit list prepared in violation of government policy?
  • Can a court exercise its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction to protect an appointment derived from a flawed recruitment process?
  • Is an appointment valid if it is based on an erroneous advertisement that incorrectly awarded additional marks for local residence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saadat Khan vs Ali Sher and 2 others2023 PLD Balochistan 18 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-12-09Read full judgment →
• Saadat Khan and others vs Shahid-ur-Rehman and others2023 PLD Supreme Court 362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-23
  inheritance mutationlimitationfemale inheritanceco-sharersdeclaration of ownershipadverse possessionovert actIslamic law of inheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for declaration filed in 2004 by the legal heirs of two females (Mst. Mehro and Mst. Afsro) challenging an inheritance mutation sanctioned in 1935. The petitioners alleged that their predecessor's brother, Abdur Rehman, fraudulently excluded his sisters from their father's estate. The core legal question was whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908, given the concurrent findings of the lower courts against the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that while co-sharers generally enjoy a relationship of trust where possession by one is deemed possession for all, this principle yields to the bar of limitation when an overt act of repudiation occurs. In this case, the brother's receipt of compensation for land acquisition in 1960-61, to the exclusion of his sisters and with their knowledge, constituted an express denial of their rights. Consequently, the six-year limitation period under Article 120 commenced during the sisters' lifetime and expired long before the suit was filed. The Court dismissed the petition, affirming that once limitation begins to run against a predecessor, it continues against their successors.

  Read full judgment →
• Saadat Khan & others vs Shahid-ur-Rehman & others2023 SCP 84 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-23
  inheritance rightslimitation periodco-sharerdeclaratory suitfiduciary relationshipactual denialconstructive possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment upholding concurrent findings that a suit for declaration of inheritance rights was time-barred. The core legal question concerned the applicability of the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1908 to a suit filed by descendants of female heirs against co-sharers who had long denied their inheritance. The Supreme Court held that while inheritance rights vest immediately upon death, a suit for declaration against a co-sharer denying such rights is governed by the six-year limitation period under Article 120. The Court established that while co-sharers generally hold property in trust, overt acts—such as a co-sharer receiving compensation for land or selling property as an exclusive owner—constitute an "actual denial" of rights, triggering the limitation period. Once the limitation clock begins to run against a predecessor, it continues against successors, and subsequent disabilities cannot halt it. Finding that the predecessors had knowledge of the overt acts of denial, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit as time-barred, finding no merit in the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the six-year limitation period under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to a suit for declaration of inheritance rights?
  • What constitutes an "actual denial" of a co-sharer's rights sufficient to trigger the limitation period for a declaratory suit?
  • Does the limitation period for a declaratory suit reset for successors if it had already begun to run against their predecessor?
  • Can the benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908 be invoked against a transferee in good faith and for valuable consideration?
  Read full judgment →
• Saadat Ahmed S/O Hameed Ahmed, Syed Suleman Ali S/O Syed Asghar2023 SHC 574 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-18Read full judgment →
• Saad Zia vs The State etc2023 SCP 243, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 38, 2023 SCMR 1898 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-06-20
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquiryabsconsioncriminal investigationreport under Section 173 Cr.P.C.liberty of citizen
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an FIR registered in 2019. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was placed in column No. 2 of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and found empty-handed during the investigation, was entitled to pre-arrest bail despite being nominated in the FIR and having absconded. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting further inquiry. The Court reasoned that mere nomination in an FIR does not establish guilt, and absconsion alone is not sufficient to deny bail, especially when the petitioner has surrendered and joined the investigation. The key principle laid down is that the liberty of a citizen is a precious right that cannot be curtailed based on bald allegations, and where investigation findings suggest no specific overt act, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere nomination in an FIR, without corroborating evidence during investigation, justify the denial of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can absconsion alone be considered sufficient ground to deny bail to an accused who has subsequently surrendered and joined the investigation?
  • Is an accused who is placed in column No. 2 of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitled to the benefit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sa-Ra Energy Construction Trade and Industry Inc. Turkey, Local Office at2023 CLC 1980 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-30Read full judgment →
• S.M. Khalid vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Pvt.) Limited through Chairman and another2023 PLC (C.S.) 1168 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-24
  service benefitswithholding of pensionretirement duesaudit objectionspending inquiryright to human dignitycivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a retired employee of Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited, filed a civil suit seeking declarations and recovery of post-retirement service dues amounting to Rs.6,553,242/-, after his pensionary benefits were withheld due to pending audit investigations and Public Accounts Committee proceedings. The core legal question was whether an employer could indefinitely withhold a retired employee's legitimate service benefits on the ground of an ongoing inquiry without establishing culpability or finalizing adverse findings. The Sindh High Court held that service benefits are the legal entitlement of a retiring employee and cannot be withheld indefinitely or used as a punitive measure under the guise of a pending inquiry, especially when internal committee findings largely exonerated the plaintiff and the department admitted part liability. The court laid down the principle that the right to receive pensionary benefits is a facet of the right to life with human dignity, obligating employers to ensure prompt settlement of post-retirement dues and prohibiting the indefinite withholding of admitted financial entitlements based on unfinalized audit objections or inquiries.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer indefinitely withhold a retired employee's service benefits on the ground of a pending inquiry or audit objection?
  • Whether service benefits can be denied or delayed in the absence of a proved liability or adverse finding against an employee?
  • Is the absence of a 'no demand certificate' a sufficient legal justification for an employer to withhold all post-retirement dues?
  Read full judgment →
• Rustam Khan vs Mst. Pathani through Legal Heirs and others2023 PHC 356 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-12Read full judgment →
• Rustam Baig Fareed and others vs Xii Adj (South) and others2023 PLJ Karachi 113 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-26Read full judgment →
• Rustam and others vs Jehangir (Deceased) through LRs.2023 SCMR 730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-19
  inheritancelimited ownerpedigree-tablemutationdeclarationcustomary lawreversionary rightsevidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a dispute regarding the inheritance of Mohammad, who died issueless before 1947. The plaintiffs, legal heirs of Mst. Nooran Bibi and Mst. Fateh Khatoon, claimed that the deceased’s estate devolved upon his widow as a limited owner under custom and should have reverted to his sisters upon her remarriage. The defendants contested the relationship, asserting the deceased had no sisters. The core legal question was whether the sisters' relationship was established and if they were wrongly excluded from inheritance. The trial court, appellate court, and High Court concurrently found in favor of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court upheld these findings, ruling that a pedigree-table alone is not proof of relationship unless corroborated by independent evidence or witnesses with special knowledge. Furthermore, the Court held that documents must be produced by the party itself to allow for cross-examination; mere production by counsel is insufficient. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the sisters were legal heirs and the mutation excluding them was void.

  Read full judgment →
• Rukhsana Bibi vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2023 LHC 2862, 2023 PLD Lahore 522, 2023 PLJ Lahore 848 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-23Read full judgment →
• Rukhsana Bibi vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 PLD Lahore 522 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-23Read full judgment →
• Rubina Amjad vs Javaid Shafique Siddiqui and others2023 MLD 201 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
• Rozi Khan alias Chako alias Dolat Khan vs The State2023 MLD 746 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-17
  narcoticscharassafe custodychain of custodyFSL reportin-court identificationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, passed by the Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Pishin, for possession of 1020 grams of baked charas. The appellant contended that the prosecution failed to establish the safe transmission of the narcotics, violating Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001, and raised an issue regarding his identity. The High Court analyzed the testimonies of the seizing officer, recovery witnesses, and the Head Moharrar, finding an unbroken chain of custody from the recovery of the contraband to its deposit in the Malkhana and subsequent transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Distinguishing this case from precedents where FSL reports were inconclusive, the Court observed that the FSL report in this case detailed the protocols and tests applied, making it comprehensive and conclusive. The Court held that minor identity discrepancies lose significance upon positive in-court identification, and dismissed the appeal, maintaining the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy in the accused's name affect the prosecution's case if the accused is positively identified in court by the recovery witnesses?
  • What constitutes an unbroken chain of transmission of narcotics samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
  • Under what circumstances is a Forensic Science Laboratory report considered comprehensive and conclusive under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Roshan, Ahsan, Manthar and Ghulam Qadir, Sarfraz Ahmed vs The State2023 SHC 840, 2024 YLR 1243 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-02
  Illegal Dispossession Actlawful ownerlawful occupierbenefit of the doubtgovernment landcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 for allegedly forcibly occupying and dispossessing the complainant from the disputed land. The core legal question was whether the complainant was the lawful owner or occupier of the property in dispute so as to invoke the protection of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish that the complainant party held any valid title, lease, or lawful possession of the property, which actually belonged to the government and was claimed by multiple state departments. Re-evaluating the evidence, the Court ruled that the foundational requirements of a lawful owner or occupier under the Act were absent, thereby entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a complainant who fails to establish lawful ownership or possession of disputed government land can maintain a charge under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 protect persons who are not lawful owners or lawful occupiers of the immovable property in question?
  • Whether a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Roshan Khan and another vs The State2023 MLD 1758 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-06-20
  criminal appealmurder convictiondeath sentence commutationsuppression of injuriesocular evidenceinterested witnessesPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence, the impact of suppressed injuries on the prosecution's case, and the validity of the death penalty. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular account reliable and rejecting arguments regarding the absence of independent witnesses or minor discrepancies in testimony. However, the Court commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment. The ratio decidendi rests on the finding that the prosecution deliberately suppressed the fact that the appellants had sustained injuries during the occurrence, suggesting the prosecution failed to disclose the entire truth. The Court affirmed key principles: site plans are not substantive evidence; motive is not a legal requirement for conviction when direct evidence is strong; and the quality of evidence, rather than quantity, is paramount. Ultimately, the Court held that while the conviction was sound, the suppression of material facts warranted a reduction in the sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused by the prosecution warrant the commutation of a death sentence?
  • Is a site plan considered a substantive piece of evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of related witnesses in the absence of independent corroboration?
  • Is proof of motive a legal requirement for awarding the death penalty in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Roshan Iqbal vs Nazar Muhammad and others2023 LHC 5855, 2024 YLR 989 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-19Read full judgment →
• Roshan Din vs Rashida Ilyas and 3 others2023 YLR 1106 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-10Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali vs The State2023 YLR 524 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-27
  post-arrest baildishonouring of chequemultiple FIRsfurther inquirypersonal libertybenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court arose from a bail order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (Malir) in a case registered under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the dishonouring of a cheque. The core legal questions involved whether the registration of multiple FIRs for similar allegations and a delay in lodging the FIR created a case for further inquiry, and whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail. The court held that the registration of multiple FIRs for similar allegations by the same complainant made the prosecution's case doubtful, bringing the matter within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the key principles that personal liberty is a precious right which should not be arbitrarily snatched away, that bail is not punitive or preventive in nature, and that any reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused or the probability of the prosecution story entitles the accused to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of multiple FIRs against an accused by the same complainant for similar allegations create a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution story appears doubtful and lacks plausible explanation for delay?
  • Is the object of pre-trial bail punitive or preventive in the criminal justice system of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali vs Jojo, Muhammad Raheem and Ahmed Junejo, The State2023 SHC 357 · Sindh High Court
  murderspur of the momentconviction conversionSection 302(c) PPCacquittal appealsentence reductionpremeditationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction for murder, an acquittal appeal, and a revision application for sentence enhancement. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was sustainable given the absence of motive, premeditation, and the single-injury nature of the assault, and whether the acquittal of co-accused was justified. The Court upheld the acquittal of the co-accused, finding that medical evidence contradicted the eyewitness account regarding the nature of the injuries. Regarding the appellant, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish premeditation or enmity. Relying on established precedent, the Court ruled that where a murder occurs on the spur of the moment without preparation, and the accused does not repeat the act, the offence falls under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than Section 302(b). Consequently, the Court converted the conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, while maintaining the compensation order under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to Section 302(c) when the incident occurred on the spur of the moment without premeditation?
  • Does the lack of motive and the infliction of a single injury by an accused justify a conviction under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an acquittal of co-accused justified when medical evidence contradicts the eyewitness account regarding the nature of injuries sustained?
  Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali son of Piyaro Khan Khoso vs The State2023 SHC 465 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-01
  anti-terrorism jurisdictionterrorism definitionextortionmens reacriminal miscellaneous applicationchallanpersonal enmity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order by the Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Hyderabad, which returned a challan to the investigation officer for presentation before a court of ordinary jurisdiction. The applicant alleged that private respondents extorted money from his crushing plant under threat of weapons and sought the inclusion of Section 386 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arguing the case should be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question was whether the alleged acts constituted 'terrorism' under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, thereby warranting trial by a special court. The Court held that the application was meritless and upheld the impugned order. It reasoned that the FIR lacked essential elements of terrorism, such as specific intent to intimidate, coerce, or create a sense of insecurity, and failed to mention the alleged extortion or weapons. The Court affirmed the principle that not every grave or shocking offence qualifies as terrorism; for an act to fall under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, it must satisfy the specific design and motive requirements under Section 6, and acts stemming from personal enmity or private vendetta do not constitute terrorism.

  Questions settled

  • Does an act of extortion automatically fall within the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Can an Anti-Terrorism Court determine its jurisdiction based on the challan before framing a charge?
  • Does an offence committed out of personal enmity or private vendetta qualify as terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • What are the essential elements required to establish 'terrorism' under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali Shaikh and others vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law2023 YLR 943 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-09Read full judgment →
• Robkar Adalat vs Tanvir Ilyas, Prime Minister Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir2023 PLD High Court (AJK) 75 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-04-11Read full judgment →
• Robina Kousar vs Director Technical Education, Elementary and Secondary2023 PLJ AJ&K 6 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Robina Kausar vs Umar Majeeb Shami2023 LHC 6245 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-05Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ullah vs The State2022 PHC 320, 2023 MLD 1163 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-19Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Riaz and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1704 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-09
  post-arrest bailmoney launderingAnti-Money Laundering Actcheatingcriminal breach of trusttentative assessmentcomplainant no objection
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicants, Rizwan Riaz and Imran Khan, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 3 and 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 at Police Station FIA CCC, Karachi, alleging that they collected heavy amounts under the guise of stock investments through a private company and subsequently laundered the proceeds. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the accusations, the documentary evidence collected during investigation, and the complainant's purported 'no objection'. The court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicants were specifically nominated in the FIR with active roles, sufficient prima facie material connected them to the heinous offense of money laundering—which severely impacts the national economy—and an affidavit of no objection from a complainant cannot override statutory gravity or be equated with evidence at the bail stage. The key principles laid down are that money laundering must be curbed strictly, courts must make only a tentative assessment of evidence without conducting a mini-trial at the bail stage, and bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right merely due to a complainant's somersault or consent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an affidavit of 'no objection' or consent given by a complainant can serve as a sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail in a non-compoundable offense?
  • To what extent should a High Court conduct an appraisal of evidence at the pre-trial bail stage in financial crimes involving money laundering?
  • Does the absence of a conviction for a predicate offense bar the prosecution of an accused under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010?
  • Are accused persons entitled to bail as a matter of right merely because the offenses alleged fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ijaz & another vs Javed Akhtar & others2023 IHC 396, 2024 MLD 799 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-06
  Section 63 CrPCadministrative orderrevisional jurisdictioninherent powersSection 561-A CrPCphysical remandabuse of processdischarge of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge in revisional jurisdiction, which set aside a Judicial Magistrate’s order releasing accused persons under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate’s order under Section 63 CrPC is judicial or administrative, and consequently, whether it is amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435/439-A CrPC. The Court held that an order under Section 63 CrPC is administrative in nature and therefore not subject to revision. However, the Court determined that where such an order is patently illegal, perverse, or results in an abuse of the process of the court, the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to intervene. The principle laid down is that while administrative orders of a Magistrate are not revisable, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to set aside such orders to secure the ends of justice and prevent the perpetuation of manifest illegality.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, judicial or administrative in nature?
  • Can a Sessions Judge exercise revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435/439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 against an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can the High Court exercise inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to set aside an administrative order passed by a Magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Anwar vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Faisalabad2023 PTD (Trib.) 1237 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-11-23Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ali Sayal vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 LHC 5587, 2024 PLD Lahore 54, 2024 PTD 32 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-19
  writ of quo warrantolachespublic officehonourable acquittalappellate tribunal inland revenuecivil servant probation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 assailed the appointment of Respondent No.5 as Member Judicial, Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad, seeking a writ of quo warranto on the ground that his past involvement in a criminal case disentitled him from holding public office. The core legal questions involved whether an acquittal based on a compromise constitutes an honorable acquittal, whether the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 restricts appointments based on character verification during probation, whether the petition was barred by laches, and whether the respondent legally holds a public office. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that an acquittal on compromise is a valid acquittal that removes any stigma of guilt, that Section 130 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 contains no character verification restrictions for such appointments, that the petition was barred by inordinate laches of over four years, and that the respondent was lawfully appointed to a public office after fulfilling all statutory qualifications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the acquittal of a person from a criminal case based on a compromise can be considered an honorable acquittal?
  • Does the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 provide any restrictions or conditions relating to character verification during the probationary period of a Member Judicial of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue?
  • Whether a writ of quo warranto can be maintained after an inordinate delay without a reasonable explanation, thereby hitting the petition by laches?
  • Whether the office of Member Judicial of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue is a public office and whether its incumbent is occupying it lawfully under the relevant statutory framework?
  Read full judgment →
• Rifat Ullah vs Mst. Hadia Mustafa and others2023 PHC 98 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
• Riaz vs The State and others2023 YLR 2471 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-22
  Qatl-e-Amddeath sentence conversionmitigating circumstancesocular evidenceacquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Riaz, for the murder of Noor Muhammad under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account provided by relatives, the impact of the defense's plea of a police encounter, and whether mitigating circumstances warranted the reduction of the death sentence. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular testimony consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. However, the Court converted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, holding that even slight mitigating circumstances—such as the failure to recover crime empties and the lack of established ownership of the motorcycle used—justify a lesser punishment. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the petition against the acquittal of co-accused, affirming that acquittal orders carry a double presumption of innocence and require proof of perversity or illegality to be overturned. The judgment reinforces that recovery of crime weapons is corroborative, not primary, and that relative witnesses are credible if consistent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a death sentence be converted to life imprisonment when there are mitigating circumstances regarding the evidence?
  • Is the recovery of a crime weapon or empty shell essential for a conviction when ocular and medical evidence are consistent?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal order of a trial court?
  • Does the relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased automatically invalidate their testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Muhammad vs The State and others2023 PCRLJ 65 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-17
  FATA Interim Governance Regulations 2018criminal appealcondonation of delayfundamental rightsfair trialde novo trialCouncil of Eldersjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under the FATA Interim Governance Regulations, 2018, where the appellant was sentenced to twenty-five years of rigorous imprisonment by the Assistant Commissioner/ADM. The core legal questions concern whether the conviction was valid despite the failure to refer the matter to the Council of Elders as mandated by the Regulations, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. The Court held that the failure to refer the case to the Council of Elders violated the mandatory procedural requirements of the FATA Interim Governance Regulations, 2018, rendering the conviction legally unwarranted. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the right to appeal against a conviction is a fundamental right under the Constitution, and procedural technicalities regarding limitation should not override the right to a fair trial. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the case was remanded for a de novo trial before the Sessions Judge, with the appellant granted bail pending the new trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to refer a criminal case to the Council of Elders under the FATA Interim Governance Regulations, 2018, invalidate a conviction?
  • Can the delay in filing an appeal against a criminal conviction be condoned based on the fundamental right to a fair trial?
  • Are the provisions of the FATA Interim Governance Regulations, 2018, regarding the trial of criminal cases mandatory?
  • Does the right to appeal against a conviction constitute a fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hanif Rahi vs Government of Pakistan, through Secretary Ministry of Communication, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and 5 others2023 CLC 1187 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-29Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed vs The Government Of Balochistan through Secretary Food2023 PLC (C.S.) 1296 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-21
  disciplinary proceedingsretired government servantstatutory limitationpensionary benefitsmandatory provisionadministrative lawembezzlement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired government servant, challenged disciplinary proceedings and subsequent penalties imposed by the Balochistan Food Directorate regarding alleged wheat embezzlement. The core legal question was whether disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retired employee under the Balochistan Employees' Efficiency and Discipline Act, 2011, remain valid if finalized after the two-year statutory period prescribed by Section 20 of the Act. The Court held that the proviso to Section 20, which mandates that proceedings against a retired employee must be finalized within two years of retirement, is a mandatory provision. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court ruled that any proceedings concluded after this statutory timeframe are void, lack legal effect, and result in the abatement of the disciplinary action. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned penalty order issued after the lapse of the two-year period, directing the authorities to release the petitioner's pensionary benefits and gratuity. The judgment establishes that statutory time limits for disciplinary proceedings against retired civil servants are mandatory, protecting them from indefinite litigation and ensuring finality in administrative processes.

  Questions settled

  • Is the two-year time limit for finalizing disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee under the Balochistan Employees' Efficiency and Discipline Act, 2011, mandatory or directory?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to finalize disciplinary proceedings against a retired government servant within the statutory period prescribed by the Balochistan Employees' Efficiency and Discipline Act, 2011?
  • Does the protection against indefinite disciplinary proceedings under the Balochistan Employees' Efficiency and Discipline Act, 2011, apply to proceedings initiated during the employee's service?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed Jokhio vs Auditor General of Pakistan and Others2023 SHC 176 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-10Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed Banbhan & 02 others, The State vs The State, Riaz Ahmed and others2023 SHC 990 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs Nasir Ahmad2023 CLC 1777 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
• Review Petition by the Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry2023 SCP 297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-28
  civil review petitionwithdrawal of petitionjudicial reviewprocedural delaystatutory independenceexpunction of remarks
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of Civil Review Petitions and Civil Miscellaneous Applications filed by various state entities and political parties seeking review of, or intervention in, the Supreme Court's judgment dated 6 February 2019. During the proceedings, the Government of Pakistan, the Ministry of Defence, the Intelligence Bureau, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, and the Election Commission of Pakistan sought to withdraw their respective review petitions or applications. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf also withdrew its application to be arrayed as a party, acknowledging the legality of the original judgment. Other applications regarding joinder and expunction of remarks remained pending due to counsel unavailability or requests for further instructions. The Court noted concerns regarding the delayed fixation of these applications, the motivations behind their simultaneous filing, the independence of statutory bodies in initiating these proceedings, and the status of the judgment's implementation. Emphasizing that all parties had prior opportunities to be heard in open court, the Court granted a final opportunity for all interested parties to submit written affidavits disclosing relevant facts before adjourning the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party withdraw a civil review petition after it has been filed before the Supreme Court?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to inquire into the independence of statutory bodies when they file review petitions against a court judgment?
  • Is a party entitled to be arrayed as a party in a review proceeding if they previously had the opportunity to be heard in the original proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Review Petition by Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed, Chairman, Awami Muslim2023 SCP 353, 2024 SCMR 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-15
  review petitionnon-fixation of casesbinding precedentArticle 189Article 190contempt of courtCommission of Inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from review petitions and miscellaneous applications pertaining to a 2019 Supreme Court judgment on orchestrated violent protests, which had remained unaddressed for over four years due to administrative delays. The primary legal questions concerned the withdrawal of unpressed applications, the binding effect of Supreme Court judgments, and the appropriateness of initiating contempt proceedings against successor executive officers for non-implementation by past administrations. The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 3577 of 2019 as not pressed after the applicant cited misapprehension, and dismissed another application as withdrawn. The Court transparently acknowledged past administrative manipulations within the registry that withheld review petitions from being fixed. Emphasizing institutional accountability and democratic integrity, the Court held that under Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, Supreme Court judgments are strictly binding and must be implemented by executive authorities. However, the Court declined to invoke contempt powers under Article 204 against current incumbents, noting their active commitment to compliance and the Federal Government's appointment of an Inquiry Commission under the Pakistan Commissions of Inquiry Act, 2017.

  Questions settled

  • Are decisions of the Supreme Court binding on all executive authorities under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Should contempt proceedings under Article 204 of the Constitution be initiated against current incumbents for non-implementation of a judgment by their predecessors?
  • Can a review application be dismissed as not pressed upon the applicant's statement that it was filed under misapprehension?
  Read full judgment →
• Review Application No. 1 of 2021 In Appeal No. 30 of 2018_ In the matter of vs Not2023 CLD 1484 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-08-25Read full judgment →
• Review Application No. 1 of 2019 In Appeal No. 5 of 2017_ In the matter of vs Not2023 CLD 1480 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-06-22Read full judgment →
• Reveiew Petition by the Govt. of Pakistan through Secretary M_o Defence vs Not2023 SCP 343, 2024 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-01
  civil reviewwithdrawal of reviewlimitationstatutory dutycommission of inquirypolitical funding
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from several civil review petitions and miscellaneous applications filed against the Supreme Court of Pakistan's judgment dated 6 February 2019 in SMC No. 7 of 2017. The Federal Government, through the Ministry of Defence and the Intelligence Bureau, sought to withdraw its review petitions after keeping them pending for over four years. The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) also sought to withdraw its review petition, but the Court noted that its Chairman had signed the power of attorney without written authorization from the Authority, in violation of Section 8(5) of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002. Additionally, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) sought to withdraw its application to delete certain observations, which the Court dismissed as frivolous. The Court observed that several state institutions and political parties had filed meritless review applications and subsequently sought to withdraw them after inordinate delays. The Court dismissed the withdrawn petitions, directed the ECP to re-examine the funding of the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) in accordance with the law, and noted the Federal Government's proposal to constitute an inquiry commission under the Pakistan Commissions of Inquiry Act, 2017.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory authority take decisions orally where the governing statute expressly requires decisions to be in writing?
  • Whether a review petition filed after a delay of approximately 1,700 days can be entertained without any application for condonation of delay?
  • Can a constitutional body delegate its independent decision-making power to a scrutiny committee without independent application of mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Rematullah and 3 others vs Naseer Ahmed and others2023 PLJ Quetta 162 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-16Read full judgment →
• Reliance Petrochem Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized2023 PTD 186 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-30Read full judgment →
• Reliance Insurance Company Limited through Manager vs Ahsan Ikram2023 CLD 1354 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-24Read full judgment →
• Reinhart India (Private) Limited through Special Attorney vs Bashir Cotton2023 CLD 1051 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-10Read full judgment →
• Rehmdil vs Mst. Bibi and 3 others2023 CLC 994 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-08Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah s/o Muhammad Sallah Khan and 9 others vs Inayatullah s/o2023 SHC 317, 2024 CLC 311 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-11Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah son of Ajab Khan vs The State2023 SHC 1100 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-14
  criminal appealmurderanti-terrorismidentification paradebenefit of the doubtocular accountweapon recoveryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant, Rehmatullah, under Section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside related arms offenses, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment and other penalties. The core legal questions involve the reliability of identification evidence in the absence of physical descriptions in the FIR, the credibility of the sole complainant's testimony given the dark conditions of the crime scene, and the validity of weapon recoveries. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring discrepancies, delayed and uncorroborated identification, failure to prove the source of light, and withholding of independent witnesses. Consequently, the court laid down that a single reasonable doubt arising from contradictions in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right, thereby setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can an identification parade form the sole basis of conviction when the eyewitness failed to provide any physical descriptions or features of the accused in the FIR or police statements?
  • Does the absence of evidence regarding a source of light during a nighttime incident render the identification of the accused unreliable?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution withholding independent material witnesses available at the scene of the crime?
  • Does a contradiction in the testimonies of recovery witnesses regarding the place and manner of recovery vitiate the weapon's evidentiary value?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah Brohi vs Ghulam Sarwar Sadhayo2023 SHC 325, 2024 CLC 1158 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-18Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah and others vs Naseer Ahmed and others2023 CLC 115 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-16Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Wali Khan and another vs Ghulam Muhammad and others2023 SCP 176, 2024 PLJ SC 264, 2023 PLD Supreme Court 506 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-04-11
  unregistered sale deedregistered sale deedpart performanceequitable titlelimitationpossessionbona fide purchaser
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute over land ownership in Chitral, where the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents claimed title based on an unregistered sale deed dated 08.06.1978, accompanied by delivery of possession. The appellants challenged this, asserting that a subsequent registered sale deed dated 22.10.1988 conferred superior title. The core legal question was whether an unregistered sale deed, when accompanied by delivery of possession, takes precedence over a subsequent registered sale deed, and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an unregistered deed, when coupled with physical possession, creates an equitable title that prevails over a subsequent registered deed. The Court affirmed that Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, protects such a transferee in possession. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the law of limitation cannot extinguish a vested right created under Section 53-A, as the statute of limitation is not intended to deprive a party of an existing right, particularly when the transferee remains in possession of the property.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unregistered sale deed accompanied by delivery of possession take precedence over a subsequent registered sale deed?
  • Can the law of limitation be invoked to extinguish a right created under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
  • Does Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, create an equitable title in favour of a transferee in possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Noor vs Zulqarnain2023 SCP 219, 2023 SCMR 1645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-07-24
  oral giftmutationburden of proofattestation of documentsrevenue recorddocument of titleQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerns a dispute over the validity of an oral gift of agricultural property allegedly made by a deceased brother to his sister. The core legal question was whether a revenue mutation entry alone suffices to prove a valid gift and whether the appellant successfully established the essential ingredients of a gift—offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a mutation entry is a summary proceeding for revenue purposes, not a document of title, and carries no presumption of correctness until incorporated into the record of rights. The Court emphasized that a mutation entry does not substitute for independent evidence of the underlying transaction. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, instruments required by law to be attested must be proved by examining the requisite number of attesting witnesses. As the appellant failed to prove the essential ingredients of the gift or comply with mandatory attestation requirements, the claim of ownership was rejected, affirming the Revisional Court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mutation entry in the revenue record constitute a document of title?
  • Is a mutation entry sufficient to prove the essential ingredients of an oral gift?
  • What is the consequence of failing to examine the required number of attesting witnesses for a document required by law to be attested under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does a mutation entry carry a presumption of correctness prior to its incorporation into the record of rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehman vs Dur Muhammad and 3 others2023 PLD Balochistan 113 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-09Read full judgment →
• Rehman Shah vs Muzaffar Shah and 6 others2023 MLD 1460 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-02-09Read full judgment →
• Rehana Shafqat vs Afira Butt and others2023 LHC 5631, 2024 MLD 1156, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 879 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-24
  special oathsuccession certificatepensionary benefitsrevisional jurisdictiondivorce deedbinding compromiseappealability
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant revision petition arose from proceedings initiated by the petitioner for a succession certificate regarding the pensionary benefits of her deceased husband. The petitioner contested the entitlement of the respondent, claiming the deceased had divorced her in 2002. The trial court and subsequently the appellate court held that both wives were entitled to pensionary benefits. During the proceedings, the petitioner had offered to have the matter decided on the basis of a special oath, which the respondent accepted. The core legal question was whether a decision rendered on the basis of a special oath is appealable and whether the petitioner could resile from such an offer. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that a decision based on a special oath constitutes a lawful compromise and is not subject to appeal. The court affirmed that an offer of a special oath, once made voluntarily and accepted, is binding upon the party, who cannot subsequently resile from it. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of coercion or invalidity in the agreement, upholding the lower courts' findings regarding the divorce documentation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a decision rendered on the basis of a special oath appealable?
  • Can a party resile from an offer to have a matter decided on the basis of a special oath once it has been accepted?
  • Does a decision based on a special oath constitute a binding compromise?
  Read full judgment →
• Regional Police Officer, Dera Ghazi Khan Region, etc vs Riaz Hussain2023 SCP 323, 2024 SCMR 1021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-14
  condonation of delaylimitationgovernment litigationssufficient causeservice tribunalcivil petitionstandard operating procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal was directed against an order passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The core legal question revolved around whether an inordinate delay of thirty-one days in filing the petition by government departments could be condoned on the basis of general administrative delays and inter-departmental formalities. The Supreme Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the petition as time-barred. The holding established that government departments and state functionaries must be treated on an equal footing with ordinary litigants, and no preferential treatment or extraordinary clemency can be granted regarding the law of limitation. The key principle laid down is that the law aids the vigilant and not the indolent, and applications for condonation of delay filed by state entities must provide a cogent explanation accounting for each day's delay, identify responsible delinquent officials, and demonstrate compliance with established Standard Operating Procedures rather than relying on stereotypical pleas of bureaucratic inertia.

  Questions settled

  • Whether government departments are entitled to preferential treatment or leniency in matters of limitation compared to ordinary litigants?
  • Does the consumption of time in completing inter-departmental procedures and formalities constitute a sufficient cause for condoning delay under the Limitation Act?
  • Is an applicant seeking condonation of delay legally required to explain the delay of each and every day?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for a government department seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals before the superior courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Regional Manager, NADRA Rho, Hayatabad, Peshawar and another vs Mst.2023 SCP 377, 2024 SCMR 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-22
  NADRAcorporate bodyPakistan Origin Cardlocus standistatutory interpretationcivil procedurelitigation management
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed by NADRA officials challenging a High Court judgment regarding the issuance of a Pakistan Origin Card (POC). The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners were not authorized to file the petition in their personal capacities, as the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) is a corporate body that must sue and be sued in its own name under the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000. The Court criticized the petitioners for failing to comply with the Ordinance and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding the proper description of parties. Although the petitioners argued that the High Court judgment failed to account for potential future divorce scenarios affecting POC eligibility under the National Database and Registration Authority (Pakistan Origin Card) Rules, 2002, the Court noted that the specific grievance regarding the issuance of the card had already been redressed by the Authority. The Court held that the Authority must act in accordance with its own governing law and rules, and disposed of the petition with the clarification that any future contingencies regarding the POC would be governed by the relevant Ordinance and Rules.

  Questions settled

  • Must a statutory corporate body sue and be sued in its own name?
  • Can individual officers of a statutory body file litigation on behalf of the body without proper authorization?
  • Does the failure of a lower court to address specific statutory rules in a judgment necessitate interference if the underlying grievance is already redressed?
  Read full judgment →
• Regarding grant of Additional 20 marks to Hafiz-e-Quran while admission2023 SCP 94 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-30
  suo motu jurisdictionconstitution of benchesjudicial restraintadditional marks Hafiz-e-QuranPEMRA prohibition orderdissenting notenatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This dissenting judgment by Shahid Waheed, J. arises from a matter concerning the validity of awarding twenty additional marks to Hafiz-e-Quran candidates seeking admission to MBBS or BDS degrees, which was treated as a recommendation for invoking suo motu jurisdiction. The core legal question revolves around whether matters not directly and substantially in issue, such as the validity of a PEMRA prohibition order against discussing state institutions and judges, can be adjudicated by a bench without pleadings or notice to parties, and whether objections to the constitution of a specially constituted bench are maintainable after proceedings have commenced. The holding states that a court ought not to decide questions not directly in issue or raised by parties without affording an opportunity of being heard, and that a judge participating in a bench is estopped from challenging its administrative constitution by the Chief Justice. The key principle laid down is that judicial restraint must be exercised to avoid deciding extraneous matters outside the scope of the pending lis, respecting natural justice and the doctrine of estoppel regarding bench constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court adjudicate upon a question that is not directly and substantially in issue in the case pending before it?
  • Whether a member of a bench is estopped from questioning the administrative constitution of the bench after participating in the proceedings?
  • Is it permissible for a court to examine the validity of a regulatory prohibition order without notice to the regulatory authority or the parties concerned?
  Read full judgment →
• Reference by the President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan under Article 186 of the Constitution vs Not2023 SCP 390, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-12
  Presidential ReferenceAdvisory JurisdictionCriminal TrialConstitutional InterpretationJudicial BiasAmicus CuriaeArticle 186
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Reference No. 1 of 2011, filed by the President of Pakistan under Article 186 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, seeking an opinion regarding the criminal trial and conviction of the late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. The Supreme Court, noting the prolonged pendency of the Reference, reactivated the proceedings to determine the constitutional and legal questions surrounding the case. The Court allowed the representation of the late Mr. Bhutto’s grandson and appointed several amici curiae to assist with constitutional, legal, and criminal procedure aspects. The Court formulated specific issues for determination, including the maintainability of the Reference under Article 186, the propriety of conducting a factual inquiry within the advisory jurisdiction, and the legitimacy of the original trial and appeal proceedings, particularly regarding allegations of judicial bias and political interference by a usurper regime. The Court directed the submission of written opinions by the appointed amici and ordered the production of relevant evidentiary materials, including recordings of judicial interviews, to facilitate a comprehensive review of the historical trial's integrity.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Presidential Reference filed under Article 186 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan maintainable for reviewing a past criminal conviction?
  • Can the Supreme Court of Pakistan conduct a factual inquiry when rendering an opinion under its advisory jurisdiction pursuant to Article 186 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
  • What are the legal consequences of departing from the standard mode of trial in a murder case?
  • To what extent is the confessional statement of an approver admissible against a co-accused in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Raziq Jan vs The State and another2023 YLR 2401 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-27
  circumstantial evidencepointation and recoveryconfessional statementmurder referenceabductionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder, kidnapping, and causing disappearance of evidence. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value of pointing out a grave leading to the recovery of a dead body under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the legality of confessional statements, and whether an abduction charge is made out when the victim and accused are neighbors and the crime occurs in close proximity. The Peshawar High Court held that direct evidence is not mandatory and a conviction can be sustained on strong circumstantial evidence, including voluntary pointation and recovery of the corpus delicti. However, the court set aside the conviction for kidnapping under Section 364-A, P.P.C. because the element of abduction was not established given the neighborhood proximity, and acquitted the main appellant of concealing evidence since he was the primary perpetrator of the murder. The key principles laid down include that pointation of a grave by an accused leading to the discovery of a dead body is admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimonies cannot be discarded solely on the basis of their official status.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence such as pointation and recovery of a dead body?
  • Whether the pointation of a grave by an accused person is admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does the non-association of independent private witnesses vitiate a recovery made pursuant to the pointation of an accused under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the offense of kidnapping under Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is made out when the victim and the accused reside as immediate neighbors and the crime occurs in close proximity?
  Read full judgment →
• Razia Bibi vs Province of the Punjab, through the Home Secretary, and others2023 LHC 6711 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Razaque Steels (Pvt.) Ltd. and another: In the matter of vs Not2023 CLD 616 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-02Read full judgment →
• Raza Shah vs Superintendent Central Prison, Peshawar and another2023 YLR 434 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-29
  concurrent sentencesconsecutive sentencescriminal revisionsentencing discretiondishonour of chequereformatory punishmentCode of Criminal Procedure 1898
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order dismissing the petitioner's appeal for the conversion of consecutive sentences into concurrent ones. The petitioner had been convicted in four separate cases under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving three years of imprisonment in each case. The core legal question was whether the High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, possesses the authority to direct that consecutive sentences imposed in separate trials run concurrently under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that Section 397 confers wide discretion upon the court to order concurrent sentences based on the facts and circumstances of each case, aiming to balance punitive measures with the reformatory purpose of imprisonment. Emphasizing that the administration of justice requires undoing wrongs and preventing unnecessary judicial processes, the Court ordered that the petitioner’s sentences run concurrently. The judgment establishes that the power to order concurrent sentences is not limited to the trial stage but may be exercised by appellate or revisional courts to ensure substantial justice and proportionality in sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, order consecutive sentences to run concurrently?
  • Does Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grant the court discretion to order concurrent sentences in separate trials?
  • Is the power to order concurrent sentences limited to the trial court, or can it be exercised by an appellate or revisional court?
  Read full judgment →
• Raza Khan vs Haji Javaid and others2023 YLR 367 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-25Read full judgment →