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.

• Munir Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2023 LHC 1180 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed Kasi vs Arbab Samiullah and 12 others2023 PLD Balochistan 59 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-18Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad, Advocate High Court vs Province of Punjab, through Chief2023 LHC 1082 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad, Advocate High Court vs Province of Punjab through Chief2023 PLJ Lahore 543 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs State, etc.PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 268 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-09
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailcriminal appealvicarious liabilityforensic evidenceappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of a sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the petitioner, Munir Ahmed, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah, following his conviction under Sections 302 and 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, convicted for his alleged role in a murder, demonstrated sufficient grounds for the suspension of his sentence pending the final disposal of his appeal. The court observed that evidence, including forensic reports and the testimony of the Investigating Officer, indicated the petitioner was not armed and did not fire the shots that caused the deceased's injuries, as all crime empties were linked to the co-accused's weapon. Given the petitioner's prolonged incarceration of over one year and nine months and the unlikely prospect of an early hearing for his appeal, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief. The court suspended the sentence and granted bail, establishing the principle that where evidence prima facie contradicts the prosecution's allegations regarding the accused's role, suspension of sentence is warranted pending appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, when forensic evidence contradicts the prosecution's case regarding the accused's role?
  • Does the absence of an early hearing prospect for an appeal constitute a valid ground for the suspension of a sentence?
  • Is the suspension of a sentence permissible when the evidence suggests the accused was not armed during the commission of the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muneeza Fatima vs Chairman Arbitration Council Islamabad and another2023 IHC 230 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muneer Ahmed vs Galyat Development Authority and another2023 CLC 1093 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muneer Ahmed vs Galiyat Development Authority2023 PHC 16 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muneeb Hassan vs The State and another2023 YLR 2462 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-05
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtinterested witnessesforensic evidenceocular evidenceacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a revision petition for sentence enhancement and an appeal against the acquittal of a co-accused. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt given the interested nature of the witnesses, the lack of independent corroboration, and the inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene, noting that the site plan and the age gap between the witnesses and the deceased made their alleged gathering for gossip improbable. Furthermore, the failure to send crime empties for forensic analysis and the exaggerated implication of multiple accused in a crime likely committed by one person rendered the evidence unreliable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the revision petition and the appeal against the co-accused’s acquittal, reaffirming the principle that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of closely related witnesses in a case of blood feud requires independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure to send crime empties to the forensic laboratory for analysis render the recovery evidence doubtful?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on ocular evidence when the prosecution's narrative of the occurrence is inherently improbable?
  • Is the abscondance of an accused sufficient to sustain a conviction when the substantive evidence against them has been disbelieved?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain and 5 others vs Government of Punjab through District2023 PLD Lahore 216 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-02Read full judgment →
• Munawar Bibi vs The State2023 SCP 238, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 121, PLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 296, 2023 SCMR · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-08-03
  pre-arrest bailrule of consistencyprohibitory clausepersonal libertytheftfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the refusal of the High Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was accused of theft under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a lady of advanced age, was entitled to pre-arrest bail, particularly given the three-month delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted post-arrest bail. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The Court held that since the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal the exception. Furthermore, the Court applied the rule of consistency, noting that denying bail would serve no useful purpose as the petitioner would likely be entitled to post-arrest bail immediately upon arrest. The judgment reinforces that personal liberty is a precious right and that pre-arrest bail may be granted where a case warrants further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail?
  • Can the merits of a case be considered by a court while deciding a petition for pre-arrest bail?
  • Does an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ali vs The State2023 PCRLJ 648 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-06
  amended chargerecall of witnessesfair trialremanddeath sentencemurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge for double murder under section 302(b) read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentenced to death along with compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. During the trial, the charge was amended to include the second deceased person, but instead of recalling the previously examined prosecution witnesses for re-examination in terms of section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the trial court adopted the previously recorded evidence based on the consent of the prosecutor and defense counsel. Upon appeal and death reference, the Sindh High Court held that adopting previously recorded evidence after an amendment of the charge violates the mandatory provisions of section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and prejudices the accused, thereby causing a miscarriage of justice and violating the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, answered the death reference in the negative, and remanded the case back to the trial court for retrial from the stage of recalling the witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Does the adoption of previously recorded evidence upon the amendment of a charge satisfy the requirements of section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the failure to recall and re-examine witnesses after an alteration of the charge causes a prejudice amounting to a failure of justice under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the prosecution and the defense legally consent to waive the re-examination of witnesses when a charge is amended under section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to comply with section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 violate the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ali Sagar & Others vs Province Of Sindh & Others Shanker Lal2023 SHC 926, 2024 PLD Sindh 428 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-16Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ul Haq vs The State2023 YLR 2144 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-08
  assets beyond meanscorruptionburden of proofcriminal appealdelayed FIRprosecution evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, specifically for acquiring assets beyond known sources of income. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the accused's known sources of income and demonstrated that his assets were disproportionate to those sources, and whether the inordinate delays in lodging the FIR and submitting the challan vitiated the proceedings. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that in "assets beyond means" cases, the prosecution bears the initial burden to quantify the accused's known sources of income and prove that the assets are disproportionate. Mere possession of assets does not constitute an offence; rather, it is the failure to account for assets that are proven to be disproportionate that creates liability. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that unexplained, inordinate delays in the registration of the FIR and the submission of the challan severely prejudice the accused and undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prosecution have the initial burden to establish the known sources of income of a public servant in an assets beyond means case?
  • Can unexplained, inordinate delay in the submission of a challan vitiate criminal proceedings?
  • Is the mere possession of assets by a public servant sufficient to prove an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 without proof of disproportionate wealth?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove its case shift the burden of proof to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz son of Munawar Khan, r/o Suhbat Kalay Zando Banda Risalpur,2023 PHC 24 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mumtaz Hussain Phulpoto (Ex-Inspector) vs Inspector General of Police, National Highways & Motorway Police, Islamabad and 2 others2023 PLJ Tr.C. (Service) 34 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service appealdismissal from servicemajor penaltyregular departmental inquiryprinciples of natural justicemisconductback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal was filed under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, challenging an office order whereby the appellant, an Ex-Inspector of the National Highways and Motorway Police, was dismissed from service after being accused of issuing bogus challans and corruption. The core legal question was whether a major penalty of dismissal could be imposed without conducting a regular departmental inquiry and without issuing a charge sheet, and whether the same authority could issue the show-cause notice and pass the final order of dismissal. The Federal Service Tribunal held that imposing a major penalty requires a mandatory regular departmental inquiry and the observance of due process unless legally and cogently dispensed with, and that unverified statements and failure to produce inquiry records vitiate the penalty. The Tribunal set aside the impugned dismissal order and directed the reinstatement of the appellant with full back benefits, laying down that dispensing with a regular inquiry without cogent, justiciable reasons when charges are denied violates the principles of natural justice and renders the penalty unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a major penalty of dismissal from service can be imposed upon a civil servant without holding a regular departmental inquiry?
  • Can the requirement of a regular departmental inquiry be dispensed with without recording cogent and justiciable reasons?
  • Whether unverified photocopies of statements can form the sole basis for imposing a major penalty without examining witnesses in an inquiry?
  • Does the failure to provide a charge sheet and conduct an inquiry vitiate the penalty of dismissal from service?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Hussain Malik vs The State2023 SHC 419 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-23
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailcriminal conspiracyfurther inquirynon-prohibitory clausemalafide investigationprisoner escape
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple bail applications, both pre-arrest and post-arrest, filed by police and jail officials accused in FIR No. 35/2023 regarding the escape of a prisoner from Central Prison, Sukkur. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the nature of the charges under Sections 120-B, 221, 222, and 223 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, finding that the investigation appeared lop-sided, potentially malafide, and lacking in specific evidence regarding the alleged conspiracy or the individual roles of the accused. The Court observed that the offences, while serious, fell within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the case required further inquiry. The principle laid down is that where an investigation is prima facie biased, selective, or lacks concrete evidence of individual culpability, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt at the bail stage, and the matter warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 222 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted where the investigation appears to be lop-sided and selective?
  • Is a case eligible for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the FIR lacks specific details regarding the date, time, and place of the alleged conspiracy?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Bibi and others vs Public At Large and others2023 YLR 675 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz and another vs The State through A.A.G and2023 PHC 534 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-22Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan Ministry of Minorities (Minorities Affair Division), Islamabad and 4 others2023 PLJ Karachi 32 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali Rajpar and Brothers through Managing Partner and others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Mines and Minerals Development and others2023 PTD 39 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali Rajpar and Brothers through Managing Parner and others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Mines and Minerals Development and othersPTCL 2023 CL. 329 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-25Read full judgment →
• Multan Shah and 2 others vs Vice-Chancellor University of Malakand and 22023 PLC (C.S.) 277 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-17
  pensionary benefitsqualifying servicecontract service regularizationtemporary service for pensionuniversity employeesstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, former Class-IV contract employees of the University of Malakand whose services were later regularized, filed a writ petition seeking payment of pension after their retirement upon reaching superannuation. The core legal question was whether their initial contract/temporary service could be counted towards the minimum qualifying service for the grant of pension under the applicable Service Pension Statutes of the University of Malakand and the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963. The Peshawar High Court held that since the University's Service Statutes did not contain any special rule defining qualifying service or excluding temporary service, Rule 5 of the Service Statutes made the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 applicable mutatis mutandis. Consequently, under Rule 2.3 of the Pension Rules, temporary and officiating service followed by confirmation must be counted towards the total length of service for pensionary benefits. The court laid down the principle that subordinate legislation and service statutes must be interpreted harmoniously, and in the absence of conflicting provisions in university statutes, general pension rules permitting the counting of temporary service towards qualifying service shall apply.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract or temporary service rendered prior to regularization can be counted towards the minimum qualifying service for pension under the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963?
  • Do the Service Pension Statutes of the University of Malakand exclude the application of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 regarding the computation of qualifying service?
  • What is the legal effect of headings and sub-headings in the interpretation of service statutes and subordinate legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Multan Electric Power Company and another vs Messrs Grit (Pvt.) Limited2023 CLC 1266 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-13Read full judgment →
• Mulazim Hussain vs Government of the Punjab and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1184 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-07
  retired civil servantdepartmental proceedingslimitation periodPEEDA Actshow-cause noticepension rulesstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a Show-Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the Secretary, Primary and Secondary Healthcare Department, Government of the Punjab, against a retired civil servant. The petitioner, who retired on February 4, 2016, received the SCN on April 2, 2019, alleging misconduct. The core legal question was whether departmental proceedings or an SCN could be initiated against a retired government employee more than one year after their retirement, specifically in light of the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA Act). The Court held that the SCN was illegal and without lawful authority. It reasoned that Section 1(4)(iii) of the PEEDA Act mandates that proceedings against retired employees must be initiated within one year of retirement. Furthermore, the Court noted that Rule 1.8(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules also prohibits the institution of departmental proceedings after more than one year from the date of retirement. The Court established that statutory time limits for initiating and finalizing proceedings against retirees are mandatory, intended to prevent indefinite liability, and any proceedings initiated beyond these periods are void.

  Questions settled

  • Can departmental proceedings be initiated against a retired government employee more than one year after their retirement under the PEEDA Act 2006?
  • Does Rule 1.8 of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules permit the initiation of departmental proceedings against a pensioner after the lapse of one year from the date of retirement?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee within the statutory timeframe prescribed by the PEEDA Act 2006?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar Hussain vs Mst. Shafia Bibi2023 SCMR 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-24
  ex-parte decreesufficient causesetting aside decreecivil procedureconcurrent findingsnegligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment that declined to revise concurrent findings of lower courts, which had dismissed the petitioner's application under Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside an ex-parte decree. The petitioner contended that he failed to appear in the trial proceedings due to an alleged compromise with the respondent, which led him to believe the suit had been withdrawn. The core legal question was whether this assertion constituted 'sufficient cause' to justify setting aside the ex-parte decree. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's stance was untenable, noting the absence of any evidence of a compromise, the failure to instruct counsel regarding the alleged withdrawal, and the lack of verification efforts. The Court affirmed that a party cannot benefit from their own negligence or deliberate non-cooperation with judicial proceedings. Consequently, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, establishing that vague and unsubstantiated claims of compromise do not constitute sufficient cause to set aside an ex-parte decree.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unsubstantiated claim of an out-of-court compromise constitute 'sufficient cause' to set aside an ex-parte decree under Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a party who deliberately chooses to refrain from joining proceedings seek the court's indulgence to set aside an ex-parte decree?
  • Is a party permitted to take advantage of their own negligence or wrong in seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar Chandio vs The State2023 YLR 1813 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-15
  murdercriminal appealrelated eye-witnessesidentification parademedical evidenceforensic science laboratory reportplea of alibibenefit of the doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Mukhtiar Chandio, under Sections 302, 114, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment with compensation. The prosecution's case alleged that the appellant, along with co-accused, fatally shot the deceased due to an ongoing matrimonial dispute. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related eye-witnesses, the absence of an identification parade, the corroboration of ocular testimony with medical and forensic evidence, and the plea of alibi. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that prompt registration of the First Information Report, consistent and confidence-inspiring testimony of natural eye-witnesses, supportive medical evidence, and a positive forensic firearms report proved the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court affirmed that an identification parade is not mandatory when witnesses know the accused, and that minor discrepancies do not vitiate credible ocular testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of an identification parade is fatal to the prosecution case when the accused is known to the eye-witnesses prior to the incident?
  • Can the testimony of related eye-witnesses be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased in the absence of previous enmity?
  • Does a minor contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • How should a plea of alibi be evaluated when unsupported by reliable defense witnesses and primary documentation authors?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar Ali vs The State2023 MLD 684 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-14
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionvicarious liabilityprohibitory clausemurderocular testimonymedical evidencetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Mukhtiar Ali, who was booked along with co-accused for offenses including murder and attempt to murder under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail, considering the specific role attributed to him, the medical evidence, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was directly named in the FIR with a specific role of firing at the deceased with a Kalashnikov, which was corroborated by ocular and medical evidence, and that he shared a common intention in committing the brutal murder. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant failed to make out a case for bail as the offense entails capital punishment and falls within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is directly charged with a specific role in a heinous crime supported by medical evidence and prima facie connects to the offense via common intention, bail will be denied.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused assigned a specific firearm role corroborated by medical evidence is entitled to post-arrest bail in a murder case?
  • Does an offense carrying capital punishment and falling within the prohibitory clause disentitle the accused to bail when prima facie connected to the crime?
  • How is the tentative assessment of evidence conducted at the bail stage regarding conflicting medical and ocular accounts?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Muhammad Khan vs The Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University2023 PHC 80 · Peshawar High Court
  probationertermination simpliciterunauthorized absencelacheswrit jurisdictionregular inquiryservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the termination of the petitioner’s services as a Chemistry Teacher at Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University and the subsequent dismissal of his departmental appeal. The petitioner, who was on probation, was terminated for unauthorized absence following his involvement in a criminal case. The core legal questions were whether a probationer could be terminated without a regular inquiry and whether the petition was barred by laches. The Court held that the termination was 'simpliciter' based on admitted unauthorized absence, which did not necessitate a regular inquiry or show-cause notice, as no disputed facts existed. Furthermore, the Court found the petition suffered from significant laches, noting the petitioner's delay in seeking legal remedy after his termination and the inconsistencies in his claims regarding correspondence with the university. The Court affirmed that while a probationer is entitled to notice if termination is punitive, termination for simple unauthorized absence does not require a full-fledged inquiry. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a probationer be terminated from service without a regular inquiry when the absence from duty is admitted?
  • Does the termination of a probationer for unauthorized absence require the issuance of a show-cause notice?
  • Is a writ petition challenging termination of service barred by laches if filed after a significant delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ali Malik and others vs Secretary, Establishment Division2023 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 70 · Federal Service Tribunal
  Group InsuranceFederal Employees Benevolent FundService AppealRetirement BenefitsStatutory InterpretationLimitation PeriodDiscrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves multiple service appeals filed by retired federal government employees seeking the refund of Group Insurance premiums deducted from their salaries during their tenure. The core legal question is whether federal civil servants are entitled to a refund of these premiums upon retirement under the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969, and whether the denial of such benefits constitutes discrimination or a violation of constitutional rights. The Tribunal held that the Act of 1969 does not provide for the refund of Group Insurance premiums upon retirement; benefits are strictly payable only upon death during service. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, ruling that courts cannot create rights or liabilities not founded in statute. It further clarified that reliance on provincial precedents, such as those from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, was misplaced because those jurisdictions had enacted specific legislative amendments to permit such payments, whereas the federal law remains unchanged. Additionally, the Tribunal found the appeals to be time-barred, emphasizing that financial claims do not bypass limitation periods without valid legal entitlement.

  Questions settled

  • Are federal civil servants entitled to a refund of Group Insurance premiums upon retirement under the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969?
  • Does the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969, permit payment of Group Insurance benefits in instances other than the death of an employee during service?
  • Can a court create financial rights or liabilities for government employees that are not explicitly provided for in the governing statute?
  • Is the denial of Group Insurance refunds to federal employees discriminatory when provincial employees receive such benefits under different provincial legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs District Judge and others2023 YLR 193 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-14Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad Ali vs The Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Islamabad2023 SCP 312, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-10-16
  Right to informationArticle 19APublic importanceSupreme CourtRight of Access to Information Act 2017Registrar's powersJudicial transparencyFundamental rightsAccess to information
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought various administrative details from the Supreme Court Registrar under Article 19A of the Constitution and the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017. Upon refusal, the Pakistan Information Commission directed disclosure, but the Islamabad High Court set aside this order, holding the Supreme Court was not a 'public body' under the Act. The Supreme Court, converting the petition into an appeal, held that while the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017, does not apply to it, the Supreme Court is not excluded from the ambit of Article 19A of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that citizens have a fundamental right to access information in matters of public importance, shifting the burden to those withholding information to justify non-disclosure. It was also determined that the Registrar of the Supreme Court lacked the authority to initiate litigation on behalf of the Court without its approval. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed its Registrar to provide the requested information.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017, apply to the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Is the Supreme Court of Pakistan excluded from the purview of Article 19A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
  • What constitutes 'public importance' for the purpose of accessing information under Article 19A of the Constitution?
  • Does the Registrar of the Supreme Court have the authority to initiate litigation on behalf of the Supreme Court without its approval?
  • Can an institution refuse to provide information sought under Article 19A of the Constitution without justification that such provision is contrary to public interest?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukaram Khan vs Haji Bacha Khan and others2023 PHC 462 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-02Read full judgment →
• Mujib Rehman s/o Jaffar Khan vs Saeed Khan s/o Abdul Hadi, The Stat2023 PHC 428 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mujeeb Ur Rehman and 4 others vs The State and others2023 YLR 336 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-04-29
  dacoity with murdercircumstantial evidencecapital punishmentrecovery of looted propertyforensic evidencecriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, murder reference, and revision application arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dir Lower, convicting five appellants for dacoity with murder (Section 396, Pakistan Penal Code 1860) and mischief (Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860). The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, including recovery of looted money, weapons, and forensic matching of crime empties, despite the absence of eyewitnesses. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution successfully established a chain of circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the robbed amount and crime weapons matching the empties found at the scene, which proved the appellants' involvement in the pre-planned dacoity and murder. The Court affirmed the death sentences for the two appellants whose weapons were linked to the crime and upheld the life imprisonment for the remaining three, noting their lack of active participation in the killing. The judgment reaffirms that circumstantial evidence, when well-knitted and excluding all hypotheses of innocence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for heinous crimes like dacoity with murder.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for dacoity with murder be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the failure to record a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the presence of the accused render it inadmissible?
  • Are procedural irregularities in the investigation curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if they do not prejudice the accused?
  • Does the recovery of looted property and crime weapons from the accused, following their disclosure, constitute admissible evidence under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Mujahid Ali vs The State and 4 others2023 MLD 645 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-20
  Ex-officio Justice of PeacejurisdictionSection 22-A Cr.P.C.police powersministerial functionsroute permit disputewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a challenge to an order passed by an Ex-officio Justice of Peace, who had entertained an application regarding a private dispute over vehicle route permits and issued directions to the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) and police officials. The core legal question was whether an Ex-officio Justice of Peace possesses the jurisdiction under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to entertain disputes between private parties or issue directions to officials other than the police. The High Court held that the impugned order was passed without lawful authority and set it aside. The court reaffirmed that the powers of an Ex-officio Justice of Peace are strictly limited to issuing directions to police authorities regarding the non-registration of criminal cases, the transfer of investigations, and neglect or excess of duty by police officials. The court emphasized that the office of the Ex-officio Justice of Peace is not a court of general jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate civil disputes or issue directions to non-police officials, as its functions are purely administrative and ministerial in nature.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Ex-officio Justice of Peace have the jurisdiction to entertain applications concerning civil disputes between private parties?
  • Can an Ex-officio Justice of Peace issue directions to officials other than police authorities under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are the powers exercised by an Ex-officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 judicial or ministerial in nature?
  • Is an Ex-officio Justice of Peace authorized to issue directions to the Regional Transport Officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhslmmad Yasin and four others vs Local Government through Secretary2023 PHC 227, 2024 CLC 493 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhobbat Shah etc vs Saleem Shah etc2023 PHC 524, 2024 YLR 2820 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhibullah and others vs The State and others2023 YLR 1094 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-16
  identification paradecriminal appealmurder convictionSection 342 Cr.P.C.evidentiary valuepolice station identificationacquittalcircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves criminal appeals against convictions for murder and robbery under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily relying on identification parade evidence and alleged recoveries. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the case, citing multiple procedural flaws. Specifically, the Court ruled that identification parades conducted within police stations are inherently unreliable and that the failure of witnesses to provide physical descriptions of the accused in initial statements significantly diminishes the evidentiary value of subsequent identification. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that unexplained delays in conducting identification parades and recording witness statements are fatal to the prosecution's case. Additionally, the Trial Court’s failure to separately put incriminating evidence to each accused during their examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, violated mandatory legal requirements. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, establishing that identification evidence requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards to be admissible.

  Questions settled

  • Does the conduct of an identification parade within a police station render the identification evidence unreliable?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to put incriminating evidence to an accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure of witnesses to provide physical descriptions of the accused in their initial statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalidate subsequent identification parade results?
  • Is a statement made to the police regarding the use of a vehicle in a crime admissible as evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zuhaib Ishaq vs Senior Civil Judge and others2023 MLD 1968 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zuhaib Ishaq vs SCJ, etc2023 LHC 284 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs Mst. Lubna Imran, Waqar Khalid & others2023 SHC 289 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs Mst. Lubna Imran and others2023 PLD Sindh 282 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs Additional District Judge and others2023 YLR 200 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair Choudhary & others, Haroon Qadir & others, Akhtar2023 SCP 316, 2023 SCMR 2145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-25
  medical admissionsdental admissionsvacant seatsadmission deadlineregulatory capturePakistan Medical and Dental CouncilPakistan Medical CommissionMDCATquality medical educationconflict of interest
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court addressed petitions from prospective medical/dentistry students and a private medical college seeking to fill vacant seats after the admissions deadline for the 2018-2019 academic year, as set by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC). While the petitions were dismissed as not pressed, the Court issued detailed guidelines to the PM&DC/Pakistan Medical Commission (PMC) to streamline operations and reduce litigation. The Court held that no admissions against vacant 'drop-out' seats or after the deadline should be allowed, irrespective of the number of vacancies, and extensions to colleges must cease. It emphasized the need for a uniform academic year, earlier enrolment and admissions deadlines, and a standardized duration for the academic year across all provinces. Furthermore, the Court mandated uniform weightage for the MDCAT and other aggregate formula components, linked admission capacity to minimum standards, and called for enhanced inspection powers, public ranking systems, and the removal of conflicts of interest within the regulatory body to prevent 'regulatory capture'.

  Questions settled

  • Can medical/dental colleges fill vacant seats after the admissions deadline set by the PM&DC/PMC?
  • Should extensions for medical/dental colleges to fill seats after the admission deadline be permitted?
  • Is a uniform academic year for medical students across all provinces desirable?
  • How can 'regulatory capture' in medical regulatory bodies be prevented?
  • What measures should be taken to ensure the quality of medical and dental education in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman vs The State through A.A.G. and another2023 YLR 2237 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-17
  criminal appealidentification paradereasonable doubtocular evidencecorroboratory evidenceacquittalmurderattempted murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly concerning his identification and alleged participation in the crime. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court observed that a key witness, who did not know the appellant by name, failed to participate in a formal identification parade, rendering their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the court emphasized that corroboratory evidence, such as the recovery of a weapon or vehicle, cannot be considered in isolation to sustain a conviction when the primary ocular evidence is not confidence-inspiring. The court reaffirmed the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt is sufficient for acquittal. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, with the court noting that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is a formal identification parade required when a witness identifies an accused they did not previously know?
  • Can corroboratory evidence alone sustain a conviction when the primary ocular evidence is unreliable?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient for the acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman vs Additional Sessions Judge and others2023 PCRLJ 834 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-09
  non-custom paid vehicleseizure of propertycustoms authoritiesjurisdiction of magistratedepartmental adjudicationpolice powerssuperdari
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous matter arises from a petition challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge directing the registration of a criminal case against the petitioner, a Border Military Police official, for allegedly failing to report the seizure of a non-custom paid vehicle to a Magistrate under section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involve the jurisdiction of police officers to seize non-custom paid vehicles, the applicability of section 523, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether ordinary criminal courts or magistrates possess jurisdiction over the adjudication and custody of smuggled or non-custom paid goods, or if such matters exclusively fall within the domain of customs authorities under the Customs Act 1969. The Lahore High Court held that the police have no independent authority to seize non-custom paid vehicles except to assist customs authorities, that special laws such as the Customs Act 1969 prevail over general criminal procedure provisions, and that judicial magistrates and sessions courts lack jurisdiction to order the disposal or release on superdari of non-custom paid vehicles. The court established the principle that departmental adjudication of goods seized under the Customs Act 1969 is exclusively within the purview of customs authorities, and official acts performed by police in good faith are protected under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the police have the authority under the Customs Act 1969 to independently seize non-custom paid vehicles?
  • Do judicial magistrates or sessions courts have jurisdiction to order the disposal or release of non-custom paid vehicles?
  • Does the adjudication of property seized under the Customs Act 1969 fall exclusively within the domain of customs authorities?
  • Whether a police officer is liable to penalty for failing to report the seizure of a vehicle to a magistrate when acting in accordance with departmental procedures and special laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman alias Kotay vs The State and another2023 YLR 456 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-20
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubteye-witness testimonymaterial contradictionscredibility of witnessacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given significant material contradictions between the First Information Report and the testimony provided by eye-witnesses during the trial. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court observed that the complainant had drastically altered her version of events, including her location during the occurrence and the specific roles attributed to the accused, rendering her testimony unreliable. Emphasizing that evidence in capital cases must be unimpeachable, the Court ruled that witnesses who lack respect for truth and frequently change their accounts are unworthy of credence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the principle that when the primary eye-witness account is disbelieved and no corroborating evidence exists, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the complainant's testimony at trial materially contradicts the version provided in the First Information Report?
  • Is the testimony of an eye-witness who frequently changes their account of the occurrence worthy of judicial credence?
  • What is the evidentiary standard required for eye-witness testimony in capital cases?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the eye-witness account necessitate the acquittal of the accused when no other corroborating evidence exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahoor Ul Islam vs Convening Authorities Air Force2023 PCRLJ 1455 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-22
  court martialpakistan air force actofficial secrets actcivilian trialenhanced punishmentwrit jurisdictionpromulgation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by a retired Pakistan Air Force employee challenging his conviction and sentence by a Field General Court Martial under the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953, for offences linked to the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The core legal question concerned whether a civilian subject to the PAF Act for offences under the Official Secrets Act faces enhanced punishments under section 71 of the PAF Act, and the legality of amending a promulgation to correct an apparent clerical error regarding the specific counts of conviction. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that once a person falls within the ambit of the PAF Act via section 2(dd), civil offences tried thereunder attract enhanced punishments such as imprisonment for life under section 71. Furthermore, the court held that correcting an apparent record error in the promulgation was permissible and that tribunals relating to the Armed Forces are excluded from writ jurisdiction under Article 199(5). The key principle laid down is that trial of civilians under the PAF Act for specified offences integrates the enhanced penal consequences prescribed by military law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civilian tried under the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953 for an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 is liable to enhanced punishments under section 71 of the PAF Act?
  • Can a court martial or confirming authority amend a promulgation to rectify an apparent clerical or recording error regarding findings of guilt?
  • Does the High Court have writ jurisdiction under Article 199 over tribunals established under laws relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahir Shah and another vs Amin-Ur-Rehman and another2023 YLR 2323 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-11
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencechance witnessjudicial confessionmedical evidencemurderappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants were convicted by the trial court for the murders of two individuals, Shamsher Khan and Mst. Zarkhewa, under sections 302/324/311/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 15 of the Arms Act. The prosecution relied on ocular testimony, a judicial confession, and recovery of weapons. The Peshawar High Court, upon review, found the prosecution's case riddled with reasonable doubts. The court held that the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses whose presence was not established, and their conduct was unnatural. Furthermore, there were significant discrepancies between the ocular account and medical evidence, as well as between the site plan and the testimony regarding the location of the crime. The court also found the judicial confession to be a verbatim copy of the police statement, rendering it unreliable, and noted that the recovery of weapons was highly suspicious. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, directing their immediate acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a chance witness can be accepted without cogent reasons justifying their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does a judicial confession that is a verbatim copy of a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 satisfy the requirement of being voluntary and reliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a significant conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal if the prosecution fails to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to material discrepancies in the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahid Saleem vs Secretary, Government of Punjab etc.2023 LHC 4923 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-19
  pensionary benefitsvested rightlocus poenitentiaepast and closed transactionadministrative irregularitypromotion withdrawalconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the withdrawal of the petitioner's promotion and the subsequent reduction of his pensionary benefits from the post of 'Assistant Finance' (BS-16) to 'Senior Clerk.' The core legal question was whether the respondent department could retrospectively cancel a promotion order and deny pensionary benefits based on alleged administrative irregularities in the promotion process, despite the absence of fraud or misrepresentation by the employee. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned orders were illegal and without lawful authority. The court ruled that where a promotion is granted by a competent authority and no fault, fraud, or misrepresentation is attributable to the employee, the department cannot penalize the employee for its own administrative errors. The court emphasized that the promotion had become a 'past and closed transaction' and a 'vested right.' Consequently, the principle of locus poenitentiae applied, prohibiting the department from undoing the promotion at a belated stage. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the authorities to grant pensionary benefits corresponding to the BS-16 post.

  Questions settled

  • Can a department withdraw a promotion order after a considerable period due to its own administrative irregularity?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent the withdrawal of a promotion order where no fraud or misrepresentation by the employee is alleged?
  • Is an employee entitled to pensionary benefits based on a promotion that has become a past and closed transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahid and others vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary2023 PSC 142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-28
  marriage hallsillegal constructionresidential plotscommercial conversionmaster planencroachmentadministrative committeeSupreme Court implementation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from civil miscellaneous applications filed by owners of marriage halls seeking to restrain the demolition of their properties located on residential plots on Main Korangi Road, Karachi, and to challenge an administrative direction issued by the Chairman of the Supreme Court Administrative Committee. The core legal questions revolved around whether administrative meetings of the Supreme Court possess judicial force, whether unauthorized commercial conversion of residential plots for marriage halls is permissible, and the validity of the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957. The Supreme Court dismissed the applications, holding that directions given in administrative meetings to enforce prior judicial orders carry the full weight of implementation, and that unauthorized commercial structures on residential plots cannot claim regularization without formal conversion letters and compliance with prescribed master plan criteria. The Court reaffirmed the strict prohibition against converting residential and amenity plots for commercial purposes, ordering the restoration of such land to its original status in accordance with the master plan.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the decision of the Supreme Court in an administrative meeting has consequences akin to a judicial decision?
  • Whether marriage halls constructed on residential plots without formal regularization letters can be protected from demolition?
  • Whether residential plots falling below the minimum area requirement can be converted into commercial marriage halls under the applicable regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaheer vs The State and another2023 YLR 1146 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-25
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirybogus FRCpassport office officialssection 497(2) CrPCSection 173 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This order disposes of three post-arrest bail petitions filed by officials of the Passport Office, Gujrat, who were nominated as accused in an FIR registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, and Section 30(2) of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance 2000. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail where passports were issued based on a Family Registration Certificate (FRC) provided by co-accused, which was later found to be bogus during investigation. The Lahore High Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that the petitioners acted on an official FRC provided to them without any evidence of taking illegal gratification or performing verification beyond standard procedures. The Court established that where government officials issue documents based on NADRA records in good faith, and investigation is complete with the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 submitted, the case requires further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is an official who issues a passport based on an FRC that later turns out to be fake entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) CrPC?
  • Does the completion of investigation and submission of the report under Section 173 CrPC justify granting bail where there is no apprehension of tampering or abscondance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaffar vs Divisional Director, Elementary and Secondary2023 SC AJK 30 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zafeer Siddiqui vs The State2023 SHC 626 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-31
  post-arrest bailcybercrimesforensic reportprohibitory clauseillegal investigationelectronic crimes
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed by Muhammad Zafeer Siddiqui against the State in respect of Crime No. 16 of 2016 registered at P.S. FIA Cybercrimes, Karachi under Sections 16, 20, 21, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. The core legal question concerns the legality of the arrest and challan of the accused without obtaining the mandatory independent forensic report required under Section 40 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, and whether the offences fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the investigating agency acted improperly by making an arrest and submitting a challan without the requisite forensic report, noting that the offences largely do not fall within the prohibitory clause. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to surety, and directed a report regarding the training and competency of cybercrime investigators. The key principle laid down is that arrest and prosecution under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 without fulfilling statutory prerequisites such as obtaining a mandatory forensic report under Section 40 vitiates the justification for keeping an accused behind bars, favouring the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted when the investigating agency fails to obtain the mandatory forensic report required under Section 40 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016?
  • Do offences under Sections 16, 20, 21 and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can an accused be arrested and challaned without the foundational statutory prerequisites being fulfilled by the investigating agency?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zafar alias Gulabi vs The State etc2023 LHC 6578, 2024 MLD 919 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-29
  murderocular accountmedical evidencecontradictionbenefit of doubtmotiverecoverycross-examinationcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder arising from a private complaint filed after an initial police exoneration. The core legal questions involve the reliability of ocular and medical evidence, the credibility of chance witnesses, the substantiation of motive, and the integrity of weapon recovery and forensic reports. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case beyond a shadow of doubt due to glaring contradictions between the medical and ocular accounts, the absence of the alleged eyewitnesses at the crime scene, delayed and doubtful recovery of crime empties and the weapon, and an unproven motive. The key principles laid down include that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt, that contradictions between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding entry and exit wounds render eyewitness accounts untrustworthy, and that proper standards and techniques of cross-examination must be observed in adversarial criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding entry and exit wounds are sufficient to discard the testimony of eyewitnesses?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive through independent documentary or oral sources weaken its case?
  • Whether the delayed dispatch of crime empties and non-exclusive recovery of the weapon vitiates the reliance on forensic analysis reports?
  • Can an accused be entitled to the benefit of the doubt when multiple circumstances create reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding their guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zada vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Education, Peshawar and 2 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1027 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-05
  constitutional petitionappointmentClass-IV postdiscriminationequal treatmentreasonable classificationtransfer adjustment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed seeking a direction to the department to appoint the petitioner to the post of Chowkidar (Class-IV) at Government Primary School, Sherin Abad. The petitioner had applied and appeared for the interview pursuant to an online notice; however, while other Class-IV appointments across the district were finalized, the specific post he applied for was left unfilled and subsequently utilized for the transfer/adjustment of an existing employee. The department resisted the petition claiming the post was withheld due to a pending transfer process. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that withholding the appointment for the advertised post while filling other similar posts was discriminatory and violated the principles of equal treatment. The court reiterated that while reasonable classification allows differential treatment of unequals, equals must be treated alike under similar circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does leaving an advertised vacancy unfilled to accommodate an employee transfer constitute unlawful discrimination against a candidate interviewed for the post?
  • Whether candidates in similar recruitment processes are entitled to equal treatment under the principle that likes should be treated alike?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yunas vs Province of The Punjab and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 444 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-09
  voluntary retirementretrospective operationcivil serviceconstitutional petitionvested rightsPunjab Civil Servants Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order recalling the petitioner's retirement, which authorities attempted to enforce following an amendment to the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The core legal question was whether the 2021 amendment to Section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which altered voluntary retirement criteria, could be applied retrospectively to a retirement order issued and finalized prior to the amendment's promulgation. The Court held that the amendment does not apply retrospectively to retirement orders lawfully issued before the enactment. Relying on the principle that statutes changing the law do not affect past events unless expressly stated, the Court determined that the petitioner’s retirement, having been sanctioned and finalized under the law prevailing at the time, remained valid. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, affirming that a civil servant’s retirement, once lawfully sanctioned, becomes final and conclusive, and cannot be reopened by subsequent legislative changes absent clear retrospective intent.

  Questions settled

  • Can an amendment to the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, regarding voluntary retirement criteria be applied retrospectively to retirement orders issued before its promulgation?
  • Does a lawfully sanctioned retirement order become final and conclusive for a civil servant?
  • Can a competent authority recall a retirement order based on subsequent legislative amendments?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf s/o Khair Muhammad vs Province of Sindh2023 SHC 788 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf and others vs Mst/Salma and others2023 SHC 339 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Zaheer vs Additional District Judge etc2023 LHC 5194, 2024 CLC 664 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Addl. District Judge, Multan and others2023 SCP 83 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-08
  leave to appealNikahnama entriesconsolidation of suitsFamily Court jurisdictionprocedural amendmentconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arose from a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing the petitioner's writ petition. The respondent had filed a family suit for dower, dowry, and maintenance, while the petitioner filed a civil suit challenging the validity of certain entries in their Nikahnama. Both suits were consolidated and decided by a Family Court exercising civil jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether causes from different jurisdictions (civil and family) could be consolidated, and whether a suit challenging Nikahnama entries falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court. The Court held that while causes from different jurisdictions cannot generally be consolidated, the 2015 amendment to the Punjab Family Courts Act 1964 (adding 'any other matter arising out of the Nikahnama' to the Schedule) was a procedural change. Consequently, the petitioner's suit was deemed a family suit, making consolidation valid. Finding no jurisdictional defect in the concurrent findings of fact, the Court refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can causes emanating from different jurisdictions, such as civil and family matters, be consolidated in a single proceeding?
  • Does a suit challenging the validity of entries in a Nikahnama fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court after the 2015 amendment to the Punjab Family Courts Act 1964?
  • Is an amendment that changes the forum where a grievance is to be agitated considered procedural or substantive in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Additional District Judge, Multan and others2023 SCMR 1002 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-08
  civil suitfamily suitNikah Namaconsolidation of suitsexclusive jurisdictionleave to appealwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition. The core legal questions involved whether a civil suit and a family suit could be consolidated in a single proceeding and whether a suit challenging entries in a Nikah Nama falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the family court following the 2015 amendment to the Family Courts Act, 1964. The Supreme Court held that causes emanating from different jurisdictions cannot be consolidated in a single proceeding, and that suits challenging entries in a Nikah Nama fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the family court pursuant to the residuary entry introduced by the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 2015. Finding no jurisdictional defect in the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether causes emanating from different jurisdictions can be consolidated in a single proceeding?
  • Does a suit challenging the validity of an entry in a Nikah Nama fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the family court under the Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Is an amendment altering the forum for agitating a grievance procedural in nature?
  • Whether concurrent factual findings of lower courts can be interfered with under writ jurisdiction without showing a jurisdictional defect?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Additional District Judge, Ferozewala and others2023 PLD Lahore 503 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf and others vs Muhammad Ishaq Rana (Deceased)2023 SCMR 572 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-14
  benami transactionburden of proofdeclaration of ownershippartition suitsource of purchase moneymotiverevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This direct appeal arose from a property dispute between the successors of Imam-ud-Din (the appellants) and the successors of Sakina Bibi (the respondents) over a house purchased in 1973 in Sakina Bibi's name. The appellants claimed that Imam-ud-Din was the real owner who paid the purchase money and that Sakina Bibi was merely a benamidar, while the respondents sought partition of the property. The trial court dismissed the appellants' suit, which was reversed by the first appellate court, but subsequently restored by the High Court in revision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the essential criteria for establishing a benami transaction, including the source of purchase money, possession, relationship, motive, and custody of title deeds. The Court held that the burden of proof lies heavily on the party asserting a benami transaction to rebut the initial presumption in favor of the registered owner. Finding that the appellants failed to prove the source of purchase money, the motive, or any express agreement, the Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the High Court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential elements and criteria that must be proven to establish a benami transaction?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie when a party claims that a registered owner of a property is merely a benamidar?
  • Can a benami transaction be established solely on the basis of possession of the property and custody of the title deed without proving the source of purchase money and motive?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf (deceased) through L.Rs vs Naila Shaheen and others2023 LHC 295 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus S/O Abdul Hafeez vs The State & others2023 SHC 516 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-03
  registration of FIRJustice of Peacecognizable offenceabductioncriminal procedureabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought directions from the Sindh High Court for the registration of an FIR against the proposed accused for allegedly abducting his son, challenging the order of the Ex-officio Justice of Peace dismissing his application under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the Justice of Peace was bound to order the registration of a First Information Report in every case involving allegations of a cognizable offence without establishing a prima facie case or bona fides. The High Court held that the duty of the Justice of Peace is not mechanical and that he is not bound to direct the registration of an FIR in every case, especially where the allegations appear mysterious, malicious, or lack supporting statements and police verification. The key principle laid down is that Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is an enabling provision requiring the application of judicial mind to prevent its misuse and abuse, and directions for FIR registration should only be issued in genuine cases after forming a prima facie view.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Ex-officio Justice of Peace bound to issue directions for the registration of an FIR in every case where a cognizable offence is alleged?
  • What is the nature and scope of the duties performed by a Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an application under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be dismissed if the applicant fails to establish a prima facie case or produce supporting statements?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus Billoo vs Mrs. Piyari Sadiq Wahab and others2023 PLD Sindh 235 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis etc vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2023 LHC 1350 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis and others vs Mst. Dolat Bibi and others2023 LHC 3883, 2024 MLD 728 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yonas vs Civil Judge, East-Islamabad and others2023 IHC 282 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad2023 SHC 1096, 2024 CLC 655 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin, Mudassar vs The State, etc2023 SCP 370, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 79, 2023 SCMR 1002, 2024 PLJ SC 69, 2024 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-01
  murderconvictionmitigating factormotivesentence reductiondeath penaltylife imprisonmentocular testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a jail petition and a criminal petition arising from a murder case where the petitioner was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death by the trial court, which sentence was subsequently altered to life imprisonment by the High Court. The core legal questions addressed whether the unproven motive and inconsequential weapon recovery warrant a reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life, and whether the conviction was sustainable on the basis of consistent ocular and medical evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of the lower fora regarding the petitioner's guilt based on consistent eyewitness testimonies and medical corroboration were unexceptionable, and that the unproven motive rightly served as a mitigating factor to reduce the capital sentence to life imprisonment, aligning with domestic jurisprudence and international obligations concerning the right to life and restriction of the death penalty to the most serious crimes. The key principles laid down include that motive, while not a sine qua non for a crime, remains highly relevant to determining the quantum of sentence, and its absence generally justifies converting a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of a proven motive can be considered a mitigating factor to reduce a sentence of death to imprisonment for life?
  • Does the unproven recovery of a crime weapon render the remaining eyewitness and medical evidence insufficient for sustaining a murder conviction?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of the lower courts when ocular testimony is consistent and corroborated by medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin, Mehboob Khan vs The Director General, Pakistan Post2023 SCP 15 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-09
  equal protection of lawdepartmental examinationeligibility criteriaage limitservice lawadministrative discretionrule of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the refusal of the departmental authority to allow the petitioners to sit for a competitive examination for the post of Assistant Superintendent. The petitioners, who exceeded the prescribed age limit of 45 years, argued that they were entitled to appear for the exam because another candidate had previously been permitted to do so despite being over the age limit, citing the right to equal treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' reliance on Article 25 was misconceived. The Court ruled that the right to equal protection of law does not extend to the equal protection of lawlessness or illegal acts. One illegality cannot be perpetuated by claiming equality with a previous unlawful act. The Court affirmed that an applicant must meet the eligibility criteria prescribed by law, and a prior violation of those rules in another case does not confer a legal right upon the petitioners to demand similar treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right to equal protection of law under Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 allow a person to claim a benefit based on a previous illegal act by the authorities?
  • Can an applicant for a government post be exempted from prescribed eligibility criteria on the ground that another ineligible person was previously granted such an exemption?
  • Does the principle of equality before law permit the perpetuation of past illegalities?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs The State2023 YLR 328 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-08
  murdercapital punishmentcommutation of death sentenceocular accountspot arrestbenefit of doubtunproven motivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Yasin, who was tried and convicted under sections 302(b)/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the Qatl-e-Amd of an infant. A murder reference was also sent to the Lahore High Court for confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through ocular and medical evidence, despite the failure to prove the alleged motive. The court held that while the motive was unproven and discarded, the eyewitness testimony—corroborated by medical evidence, the prompt lodging of the FIR, and the appellant's spot-arrest with the weapon—established the appellant's guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. However, due to the unproven motive and uncertainty surrounding the immediate trigger of the incident, the court extended the benefit of doubt regarding the quantum of sentence, commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life while maintaining the conviction, compensation, and statutory benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unproven motive in a murder case necessitates the acquittal of the accused when ocular and medical evidence are otherwise trustworthy?
  • Can an unproven motive serve as an extenuating circumstance to warrant the alteration of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Is the prompt lodging of an FIR and spot-arrest with a blood-stained weapon sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • Whether minor discrepancies in the statements of eyewitnesses are fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Muhammad Ismail, etc.2023 LHC 4763, 2024 CLC 922, 2023 PLJ Lahore 896 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Additional District Judge, Burewala and 6 others2023 CLC 86 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin and another vs The Director General, Pakistan Post2023 PLC (C.S.) 1180, 2023 PSC 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-09
  departmental competitive examequal protection of laweligibility criteriaArticle 25service lawrecruitment rulesadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that upheld the denial of their request to appear for the Assistant Superintendent departmental competitive exam due to being over the age limit of 45 years. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could invoke the right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 to claim eligibility, citing that another official had previously been permitted to appear despite being over the age limit. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the departmental authority acted correctly in enforcing the prescribed age criteria. The Court established that Article 25 guarantees the equal protection of law, not the equal protection of lawlessness. Consequently, an unlawful act cannot be used as a standard for enforcing equality, and one illegality cannot be compounded by applying the right to equality. A candidate must independently satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed by law and cannot rely on the wrongful gains or previous illegalities involving others to bypass such requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 extend to the equal protection of illegal acts?
  • Can a candidate claim eligibility for a post based on the fact that another ineligible candidate was previously granted the same benefit?
  • Is a candidate required to independently meet the eligibility criteria prescribed by law regardless of past administrative irregularities?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen vs Provincial Election commissioner, Khyber2023 PHC 552 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen vs Lahore Development Authority and another2023 CLC 1507 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen and another, Shabbir Ahmad Channa and others, Inayat_19e220832023 SCP 290, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 111, 2024 PLJ SC 63, 2023 SCMR 1703 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-08-03
  Right of audienceDue processNatural justiceConstitutional jurisdictionPublic employmentService matterInquiry committee
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed constitutional petitions challenging the termination of employment. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petitions on the basis that the petitioners were contractual employees and their appointments were fraudulent, without providing them an opportunity of hearing. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment, holding that the High Court’s classification of the petitioners as contractual employees was unsupported by evidence. The Court ruled that administrative authorities cannot terminate services based on allegations of fraud without adhering to the principles of natural justice and providing the affected employees a right of audience. Emphasizing that the right to a fair hearing is a fundamental right under Article 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the Court directed the constitution of an inquiry committee to verify the appointments transparently, ensuring the petitioners are afforded due process and that the officials responsible for the recruitment process are investigated.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to provide a right of audience before terminating employment violate the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can a court summarily dismiss a petition on the ground of contractual employment when the appointment letters contain no such condition?
  • Is it mandatory for an administrative authority to conduct a fair inquiry and grant a right of audience to employees before declaring their appointments illegal?
  • Should an inquiry into allegedly illegal appointments prioritize investigating the recruiting authority over the beneficiaries of the appointments?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen alias Mama Gaddi vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1404 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-11
  qatl-i-amddeath sentence commutationinjured witnessspur of the momentpost-mortemcriminal appealabsconsion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased and attempted murder of an injured witness. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence in the absence of a post-mortem examination, the reliability of a solitary injured witness, and the appropriateness of the death penalty given the circumstances of the incident. The Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, affirming the conviction under Section 302(b) and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. It established that the failure to conduct a post-mortem does not invalidate a prosecution case where the cause of death is otherwise established. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the testimony of a single injured witness, if confidence-inspiring, is sufficient for conviction. However, regarding the sentence, the Court held that because the incident occurred at the spur of the moment due to sudden provocation without premeditation, the death penalty was disproportionate. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, applying the principle that mitigating circumstances warrant a reduction in capital punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to conduct a post-mortem examination automatically demolish the prosecution's case in a murder trial?
  • Is the testimony of a single injured witness sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Does an incident occurring at the spur of the moment without premeditation constitute a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can long-standing absconsion be considered a factor suggesting the culpability of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar and others vs Bibi Gul Seema and 10 others2023 CLC 433 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar and 4 others vs Ghulam Haider and 2 othersPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 329 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-12
  private complaintsummoning of accusedsufficient grounddelay in filing complaintpreliminary inquirycriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioners challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian, which summoned them to face trial in a private complaint under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant (Respondent No. 1) had filed the private complaint regarding the murder of his father after his attempts to register a second FIR were set aside. The petitioners contended that the complaint was filed with delay and that the summoning order was not a speaking order. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that there is no statutory limitation for filing a private complaint, and delay alone is not fatal if the complainant was actively pursuing other legal remedies. The Court further held that for summoning an accused under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, only a "sufficient ground" for proceeding is required, which is distinct from the "reasonable ground" required under Section 497. At the summoning stage, the court must only find a prima facie case and is not required to conduct an in-depth appraisal of the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in filing a private complaint is by itself fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • What is the distinction between 'sufficient ground' for proceeding under Section 204 and 'reasonable ground' under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an aggrieved person file a private complaint against persons not nominated in the initial First Information Report regarding the same occurrence?
  • What is the scope of appraisal of evidence by a trial court at the stage of summoning an accused in a private complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar alias Mumna vs The State and another2023 LHC 5417 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-21
  pre-arrest bailtheftsuspicionmalice in lawpower to arrestincriminating materialright to liberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of an F.I.R. registered under section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for the theft of an ox. The core legal question revolved around whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed and arbitrary police arrest prevented in the absence of tangible direct or indirect incriminating evidence connecting the accused to the crime, relying merely on a delayed and unverified suspicion. Upon tentative assessment of the record, the Lahore High Court held that suspicion alone, however strong, cannot substitute for admissible legal evidence, and police powers of arrest under section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 require reasonable and credible information based on concrete facts rather than vague allegations. The Court laid down the principle that the non-availability of incriminating material against an accused, coupled with police insistence on arrest without valid justification, warrants the confirmation of pre-arrest bail and establishes legal malice, ensuring protection of personal liberty and fair trial under the constitutional framework.

  Questions settled

  • Can suspicion alone serve as a substitute for admissible and legal evidence to justify the arrest of an accused under section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the prosecution fails to collect any direct or indirect incriminating material connecting the petitioner to the alleged crime?
  • What constitutes reasonable and credible information under section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for exercising the power to arrest?
  • Does the absence of incriminating material alongside police insistence on arrest sufficiently indicate malice in law to justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob S/O Faiz Muhammad vs The State2023 SHC 620 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Mughal vs Additional District Judge, Muzaffarabad Azad Kashmir and 10 others2023 PLJ AJ&K 87 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob and another vs Lal Din2023 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 92 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wassay Tareen vs Government of Balochistan through Chief2023 PLC (C.S.) 457 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-21
  constitutional petitionProvincial OmbudsmanSuperior Judicial Allowancefundamental rightsequal protection of lawdiscriminationterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a former Provincial Ombudsman (Mohtasib) of Balochistan seeking implementation of an order passed by the Governor of Balochistan granting him the Superior Judicial Allowance for his tenure from June 2013 to June 2017. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the payment of Superior Judicial Allowance on the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution, given that previous and subsequent incumbents in the office of Provincial Ombudsman were granted the same allowance. The High Court observed that all predecessor and successor Ombudsmen had been sanctioned the Superior Judicial Allowance by the appointing authority. The Court held that withholding the allowance from the petitioner lacked any rational ground or intelligible differentia, constituting unlawful discrimination. Accepting the petition, the Court declared the Chief Minister's rejection of the summary invalid and directed the respondents to release the sanctioned Superior Judicial Allowance amounting to Rs. 1,13,42,093/- to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-grant of an allowance to one holder of a public office violate Article 25 of the Constitution when the same allowance was extended to all predecessor and successor incumbents?
  • Can the executive authority refuse to release funds for an allowance sanctioned by the competent appointing authority under statutory powers?
  • Does equal treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution require that persons in identical circumstances be conferred the same pecuniary benefits and privileges?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waseem Mughal vs The State through Advocate-General of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad2023 PLD High Court (AJK) 11 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-03-01
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsprocedural lapsefurther inquirychemical analysismandatory complianceControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the rejection of a post-arrest bail application in a case involving alleged narcotics possession under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question is whether the prosecution's failure to adhere to mandatory procedural requirements for the analysis of seized contraband entitles the accused to bail under the principle of further inquiry. The Court held that the Investigating Agency's failure to dispatch the contraband for chemical analysis within the 72-hour period mandated by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, constitutes a significant procedural lapse. Consequently, the Court determined that the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that while the gravity of an offence is not a ground for bail denial, the presumption of guilt under special laws like the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, only applies when the prosecution strictly complies with all mandatory codal formalities and procedural rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the investigating agency to send contraband for chemical analysis within 72 hours entitle an accused to bail?
  • Is the gravity of an offence a sufficient ground for the rejection of bail?
  • Can the presumption of guilt under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be invoked if the investigating agency fails to comply with mandatory procedural rules?
  • At the bail stage, is the court permitted to conduct a deeper appreciation of evidence or a preliminary trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waris vs The State & another2023 IHC 404 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-23
  post-arrest bailhabitual offenderpreventive measurescriminal recordidentification paraderobberyprosecution duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner, Muhammad Waris, in a case registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving an armed robbery. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidence of his identification by the complainant, the recovery of the snatched mobile phone at his pointation, and his extensive criminal history. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, as there was sufficient tangible evidence connecting him to the offence and a high likelihood of him repeating the offence, given his status as a habitual offender. The court emphasized that while bail is a matter of liberty, it cannot be granted when the accused is a habitual offender whose modus operandi poses a threat to society. Furthermore, the court laid down principles regarding the necessity of maintaining accurate criminal records, the duty of investigating officers to document previous convictions under Section 75 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the effective enforcement of preventive measures under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to curb habitual criminality.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when there is sufficient evidence of identification and recovery of stolen property, and the accused is a habitual offender?
  • What is the scope and purpose of Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding habitual offenders?
  • What is the duty of an investigating officer regarding the documentation of an accused's previous convictions under Section 75 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the fact of a previous conviction be added to a charge after it has been initially omitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waris and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2023 PLC 41 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-16
  Voluntary Separation SchemeEOBI pensionPTCL employeesconstitutional petitionservice benefitsestoppelemployment contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions filed by retired employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) seeking pensionary benefits under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976. The core legal question was whether employees who voluntarily opted for the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) and received severance packages are entitled to claim additional retirement benefits from the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners, having consciously opted for the VSS and accepted the resulting financial benefits, are estopped from claiming further pensionary entitlements. The court reasoned that the VSS constitutes a binding contract, and by accepting the separation bonus and other benefits, the petitioners effectively severed their employment relationship without a valid grievance. Furthermore, the court noted that disputed questions of fact regarding service length cannot be adjudicated under constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that employees who voluntarily accept a separation scheme are precluded from subsequently claiming pensionary benefits, as they cannot simultaneously retain the benefits of the VSS and demand additional retirement entitlements.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees who voluntarily opted for a Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) entitled to claim additional pensionary benefits under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding the length of service of an employee be adjudicated under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the acceptance of a Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) package by an employee constitute a binding contract that precludes further claims for pensionary benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad Afzal vs D.G. Anti-Corruption, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 22 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waqas vs Executing Court, etc.2023 LHC 4846 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waqar Azeem and another vs Dr. Kartar Lal Pirwani and others2023 IHC 186, 2024 CLC 1941 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-07-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waqar alias Fauji vs The State etc2023 LHC 2141, 2024 MLD 1015 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-07
  transfer of criminal casevenue of trialsessions casesub-division trialdistrict headquartersoption of trial venue
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the transfer of a sessions case from an Additional Sessions Judge at a sub-division to the District Headquarters, on the ground that mandatory Lahore High Court instructions regarding the venue of trial were violated. The core legal question was whether the statutory and administrative procedure regarding giving the accused an option for the venue of trial (District Headquarters versus Sub-Division) under High Court directives was duly followed. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court and the magistrate failed to provide the accused with the mandatory option to choose the place of trial as stipulated by Lahore High Court Letter No. 7886/RHC/MIT dated 25.5.1999, which confers a valuable right upon the accused. The court laid down the principle that the procedure for determining the venue of sessions trials and recording the option of the accused must be strictly adhered to by magistrates and sessions judges, and denial of this option warrants the transfer of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person has a right to be given an option regarding the venue of a sessions trial between the District Headquarters and the Sub-Division?
  • What is the legal effect if a magistrate fails to record the option of the accused regarding the place of trial under the Lahore High Court instructions?
  • Can a criminal case be transferred under section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for non-compliance with administrative directives governing the venue of trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Uzair Aslam and others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Water and Power Development Authority, Islamabad and 5 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1038 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-06
  recruitment processvested rightintra court appealpublic employmentwrit of mandamuscancellation of recruitmentadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the cancellation of a recruitment process by the Multan Electric Power Company (MEPCO). The core legal question is whether candidates who have passed the written test and interview for a government post acquire a vested right to appointment, thereby preventing the employer from scrapping the recruitment process. The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the recruitment process had not attained finality as no appointment letters were issued or approved by the competent authority. The Court established the principle that mere participation in, or passing, stages of a recruitment process, such as written tests or interviews, does not create a vested right to employment. An enforceable right only accrues upon the final approval of the selection board and the issuance of an appointment letter. Consequently, an employer retains the discretion to abandon or scrap a recruitment process before it reaches this decisive stage, provided the action is not mala fide.

  Questions settled

  • Does passing a written test and interview for a public post create a vested right to appointment?
  • Can an employer scrap a recruitment process before the issuance of appointment letters?
  • At what stage of a recruitment process does a candidate acquire an enforceable legal right to employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs The State2023 SCP 139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-04-11
  attempt to murderocular accountinjured witnessspur of the momentreduction of sentencedamanprompt FIRfirearm injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a jail petition converted into an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from concurrent findings of conviction under Sections 324 and 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular account given by related and injured witnesses, the evidentiary consequence of an un-forwarded weapon to the forensic lab, and the quantum of sentence in a crime committed at the spur of the moment. The Supreme Court held that the prompt lodging of the FIR, consistent testimony of natural and injured eyewitnesses, and corroborating medical evidence proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the inconsequential nature of unexamined weapon recovery. However, considering that the incident occurred without pre-meditation during a domestic dispute and that the petitioner lacked intent to kill, the Court maintained the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone, while granting installments and surety options for the payment of Daman. The key principle laid down is that injured eyewitness testimony carries high evidentiary value, and sudden domestic altercations without pre-meditation warrant leniency in sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether prompt lodging of an FIR excludes the possibility of deliberation and consultation?
  • Does the testimony of an injured eyewitness carry higher evidentiary value in criminal trials?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to send an allegedly recovered weapon of offence to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
  • Can a sentence of imprisonment for an offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be reduced to the period already undergone when the crime occurs at the spur of the moment without pre-meditation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman s/o Muhammad Arshad vs The State & another2023 SCP 376, 2024 SCMR 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-30
  statutory delaypost-arrest baildelay in conclusion of trialsubsequent bail petitionco-accused abscondanceright to bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition, converted into an appeal, addressed the question of whether an accused person becomes entitled to post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial where the delay is caused by the abscondance of co-accused rather than any act or omission of the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the right to bail on statutory grounds under the third proviso of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 accrues as of right once the prescribed statutory period expires without the trial concluding, provided the delay is not attributable to the accused or someone acting on their behalf. The Court clarified that an accused cannot be made liable for the acts or omissions of co-accused merely due to familial relationships unless clear complicity is shown. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and granted bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second bail petition repeating grounds already taken maintainable under criminal law?
  • Does delay caused by the abscondance of co-accused forfeit an accused's right to statutory bail?
  • Can the statutory right to bail under section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be denied on the basis of the court's discretionary powers?
  • Is an accused liable for the acts or omissions of a co-accused causing delay in the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Ghani vs The State and others2023 PLD Lahore 291 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-14
  framing of chargedischarge of accusedcriminal procedurepolice reportprosecutorial assessmentfundamental rightsjudicial scrutinyColumn No. 2
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order by an Additional Sessions Judge summoning the petitioner as an accused despite their name appearing in Column No. 2 of the police report. The core legal question concerned the extent of the trial court's duty to examine material before framing a charge under Section 265-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether this empowers the court to discharge an accused lacking sufficient incriminating evidence. The Court held that framing a charge is not an automatic process; it requires the trial court to apply its mind by perusing the police report, prosecution documents, and the prosecutor’s assessment submitted under the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act 2006. The Court emphasized that involving individuals in criminal proceedings without sufficient evidence violates fundamental rights under Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the trial court must weigh the incriminating material against the evidential and public interest tests before proceeding. The petition was dismissed with a direction for the trial court to strictly adhere to these requirements before framing charges.

  Questions settled

  • What material must a trial court examine before framing a charge under Section 265-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the trial court have the authority to discharge an accused if sufficient incriminating material is not available before the framing of a charge?
  • Is a trial court required to consider the prosecutor's assessment of evidence when deciding whether to frame a charge?
  • Can an accused be summoned to face criminal proceedings solely based on their mention in a police report without judicial scrutiny of the available evidence?
  Read full judgment →