Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Muhammad Abbas vs Additional District Judge and 2 others2023 CLC 1974 · Lahore High Court · 2022-08-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aalam Brohi vs The State2023 YLR 2310 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal jail appeal was filed by the appellant challenging his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment with a fine under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, passed by the Special Judge CNS, Larkana. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was apprehended carrying a sack containing 45 kilograms of charas. On appeal, the appellant raised several defenses, including non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, lack of test protocols in the chemical examiner's report, failure to establish safe custody and transmission of samples, and the impropriety of the complainant acting as the investigating officer. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The Court held that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 explicitly excludes Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in narcotic cases. It further held that official testimonies of police/ANF personnel are fully competent, a complainant is not barred from investigating the case absent prejudice or malice, and procedural technicalities cannot override credible evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 invalidate searches made by official witnesses without private masheers?
- Can a police or ANF officer act as both the complainant and the investigating officer in a narcotics case?
- Does the absence of detailed procedural test protocols invalidate a chemical examiner's positive report if statutory rules are otherwise substantially complied with?
- Can the uncorroborated testimony of official police or ANF witnesses form the sole basis of conviction in narcotic offenses?
- Muhamamd Yahya Khan vs Akram Shah and others2023 PLJ Quetta 130, 2024 CLC 509 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-06-14Read full judgment →
- Mughira vs Mst. Hani Shamsi & others2023 SHC 158 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-02Read full judgment →
- Mufti Muhsin Mehmood vs The State and another2023 PHC 486 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-15Read full judgment →
- Mufti Kifayat Ullah vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 100 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Mufti Kifayat Ullah, who was detained under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, following remarks made during a television talk show concerning state functionaries and institutions. The core legal question revolves around whether the allegations levelled in the crime report prima facie attract the invoked penal provisions and the Anti-Terrorism Act, and whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the applicability of the charged sections and the evidentiary value of the material require further probe into the guilt of the petitioner, bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court laid down the principle that where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and require deeper appreciation and trial, the grant of bail is the general rule while its refusal is an exception.
Questions settled- Whether anti-state comments made during a television talk show necessarily attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at the bail stage?
- Do the offences under Sections 505, 506, and 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Can past criminal history where an accused has been acquitted or released on bail be the sole ground to deny post-arrest bail in a subsequent case?
- When does a case qualify for further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Mufti Kifayat Ullah vs Government of KP2023 PHC 584, 2024 PCRLJ 1875 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition, subsequently converted into an appeal, challenged the inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the Fourth Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, via a notification issued by the government. The core legal question was whether the mere existence of pending or past criminal cases, without evidence of terrorist involvement or affiliation with proscribed organizations, justifies proscription under Section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Peshawar High Court held that the respondents failed to demonstrate any reasonable grounds or material evidence linking the petitioner to terrorism, sectarianism, or proscribed organizations. Finding the impugned notification arbitrary and lacking in due process, the Court set it aside and directed the removal of the petitioner's name from the Fourth Schedule. The judgment establishes the principle that the power to proscribe individuals under the Anti-Terrorism Act requires substantive evidence of terrorist intent or affiliation, rather than reliance on ordinary criminal cases, which often lack the requisite element of terrorizing society. Furthermore, it reaffirms that public functionaries must exercise their statutory powers reasonably and in good faith, respecting the fundamental rights to life and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.
Questions settled- Does the mere existence of criminal cases against an individual constitute sufficient grounds for placing their name on the Fourth Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
- Is the government required to demonstrate evidence of terrorist involvement or affiliation with a proscribed organization to justify proscription under Section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
- Can a constitutional petition be converted into an appeal to secure the ends of justice when a statutory remedy was inadvertently bypassed?
- Mudassar Wakeel and another vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2023 PHC 245 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mudassar Wakeel and another vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2023 PLD Peshawar 187 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-06Read full judgment →
- Mubashir Yameen vs Assistant/Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue,2023 PTD 146 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the actions of the tax department in attaching the petitioner's bank accounts and recovering tax through a notice issued under Section 140 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, without first issuing a notice under Section 138 of the Ordinance during the pendency of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue. The core legal question was whether the tax authorities can invoke Section 140 for recovery and attachment of bank accounts without mandatory prior compliance with Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and violation of due process under Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution. The Lahore High Court held that the department is legally required to issue a notice under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, affording the taxpayer reasonable time to pay before invoking Section 140 for recovery measures. The court laid down the principle that statutory procedures for tax recovery must be strictly followed, and failure to issue a pre-recovery notice under Section 138 renders subsequent attachment and recovery actions illegal, void, and violative of fundamental rights to due process and fair trial.
Questions settled- Whether the tax authorities are bound to issue a notice under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 before invoking Section 140 for recovery of tax and attachment of bank accounts?
- Does the failure to issue a pre-recovery notice under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 violate the fundamental rights to due process and fair trial under Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Can coercive measures for tax recovery be sustained when an appeal is validly pending before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue?
- Mubashir Ahmad vs The State etc2023 PHC 163, 2024 YLR 2127 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-20Read full judgment →
- Mubashar Ahmad Ayaz vs Late (Moulana) Manzoor Ahmad Chinioti2023 PLJ Lahore 436 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mubashar Ahmad Ayaz vs Late (Moulana) Manzoor Ahmad Chinioti2023 LHC 171 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mubarik Ali Babar vs Punjab Public Service Commission through Secretary2023 PLJ SC 372, 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1049, 2023 PSC 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arose from a challenge to the allocation and reservation of employment quotas for religious minorities and persons with disabilities (PWDs) in the Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The petitioner sought a direction that any unfilled seats within these special quotas should be made available to general merit candidates. The core legal question was whether unfilled quota seats reserved for marginalized classes can be transferred to the open merit category. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that seats earmarked for minorities and PWDs must be retained and carried forward. The Court ruled that transferring these seats to the general quota would violate constitutional values, fundamental rights, and the Principles of Policy. The Court emphasized that the constitutional scheme guarantees equality of status, opportunity, and inviolable dignity to all citizens, mandating affirmative action and reasonable accommodation for PWDs and minorities. Additionally, the Court directed public authorities to discontinue the use of the word "disabled" in favor of "persons with disabilities" or "persons with different abilities."
Questions settled- Whether vacancies reserved for minorities and persons with disabilities can be transferred to the general open merit quota if they remain unfilled in a recruitment cycle?
- Does the constitutional guarantee of equality and dignity protect the reservation and carrying forward of employment quotas for marginalized classes?
- What is the legal status of the term 'disabled' in official correspondence and public advertisements under Pakistani law?
- Mubarik Ali Babar vs Punjab Public Service Commission through its2023 SCMR 518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a constitutional petition challenging the reservation of seats for minorities and persons with disabilities (PWDs) in the Combined Competitive Examination (CCE) conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The petitioner questioned the legality of these quotas and sought a declaration that if such seats remain unfilled in a given year, they should be converted to open merit. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the reservation of seats for minorities and PWDs is a constitutional mandate rooted in the principles of equality of status, opportunity, and social justice. The Court held that these quotas are non-negotiable and cannot be converted to open merit; rather, they must be carried forward to ensure the legitimate interests of these groups are protected. The Court emphasized that constitutional values of inclusion and dignity require the State to provide reasonable accommodation to bridge systemic barriers. Furthermore, the Court directed that the term 'disabled' be discontinued in official correspondence and replaced with 'persons with disabilities' or 'persons with different abilities' to uphold the dignity of such individuals.
Questions settled- Can seats reserved for minorities and persons with disabilities in public service be converted to open merit if they remain unfilled in a particular year?
- Does the Constitution of Pakistan mandate the reservation of quotas for minorities and persons with disabilities in government employment?
- Is the use of the term 'disabled' in official government notifications and advertisements legally permissible?
- Mubarak Ali vs Zafar Mahmood and others2023 LHC 947 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-14Read full judgment →
- Mubarak Ahmad vs Muhammad Hayat (Deceased) Through His Legal2023 LHC 6202 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Zaria Begum vs Zafar Iqbal and 7 others2023 CLC 1256 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zaib Un Nisa vs Qasim Azeem and 3 others2023 YLR 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Yasmeen Bibi vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Home and Tribunal Affairs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and 4 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 989 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed by the widow of a deceased government employee, challenging the denial of pensionary benefits. The petitioner sought to include her late husband's contractual service, rendered prior to his regularization, in the calculation of his total service for pension eligibility. The core legal question was whether contractual service followed by regularization could be counted towards the mandatory qualifying service period required for pension entitlement. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that contractual service cannot be used to satisfy the eligibility criteria for pension. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court clarified that while contractual service may be added to regular service for calculating the quantum of pension, it cannot be used to meet the threshold of ten years of qualifying service. The Court emphasized that Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations does not permit bypassing the mandatory qualifying service period. Consequently, as the deceased had not completed the requisite qualifying service independently, the petitioner was not entitled to pensionary benefits.
Questions settled- Can contractual service be counted towards the mandatory qualifying service period for pension eligibility?
- Does Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations allow an employee to bypass the ten-year qualifying service requirement for pension?
- Are legal heirs of a deceased civil servant entitled to file a writ petition for pensionary benefits?
- Mst. Yasmeen Bibi vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Home and Tribal Affiars Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,Civil Secretariate Peshawar and others2023 PHC 44 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, the widow of a deceased police constable, filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking pensionary benefits. The deceased had served as a Special Police Officer on contract from 2009 until his services were regularized in March 2020, and he passed away shortly thereafter. The petitioner sought to count the contractual service period toward the qualifying service for pension under Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations and the West Pakistan Civil Service Pension Rules 1963. The Peshawar High Court examined the maintainability of the petition by legal heirs and the substantive entitlement to pension. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that while legal heirs can maintain such a petition, contractual service can only be added to regular service for calculating the quantum of pension if the employee has independently completed the minimum ten years of regular qualifying service. Since the deceased had not completed the requisite ten years of regular service post-regularization, his contractual service could not be counted to establish eligibility. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Can the legal heirs of a deceased civil servant maintain a writ petition before the High Court for pensionary benefits?
- Whether service rendered on a contract or temporary basis followed by regularization can be counted to meet the minimum qualifying service of ten years for pension eligibility?
- Does Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations allow a temporary or contractual employee to bypass the requirement of regular qualifying service for pension entitlement?
- Mst. Veera vs Jonathan and 2 others2023 PCRLJ 421 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition sought the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents in a case involving allegations under Section 493-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning deceitful inducement into cohabitation, and subsequently added offences under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused had "deceitfully" caused the complainant to believe she was lawfully married, thereby justifying the cancellation of bail. The Islamabad High Court held that the bail orders were not perverse and dismissed the petition. The court established that for criminal liability under Section 493-A, "deceit" requires that the representee was not aware of the truth and did not knowingly turn a blind eye to circumstances suggesting otherwise. Where a complainant, familiar with marriage customs, accepts a document without standard solemnization, the claim of deception becomes a matter for further inquiry at trial. Furthermore, the court reiterated that bail cancellation requires "strong and exceptional" grounds, and the mere possibility of an alternative view does not justify recalling bail, especially for offences outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does the offence of deceit under Section 493-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require that the representee had no knowledge or suspicion of the truth?
- What is the threshold for cancelling bail once it has been granted by a lower court?
- Is a marriage void under the Christian Marriages Act 1872 automatically indicative of criminal deception under Section 493-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Are offences under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mst. Tayyeba Ambareen and another vs Shafqat Ali Kiyani and another2023 SCMR 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a matrimonial dispute where the petitioner (wife) sought dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. While the Family Court decreed the suit as prayed, the Appellate Court modified the decree, converting the dissolution to Khula and directing the return of dower (gold), a decision subsequently upheld by the High Court. The core legal question concerned the definition and proof of mental cruelty and the scope of appellate interference in findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that mental cruelty encompasses a course of conduct causing such anguish that it renders the matrimonial tie unendurable, including false accusations of infidelity and financial coercion. The Court observed that the Appellate Court erred by substituting its own presumptions for the Trial Court's evidence-based findings. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court and Appellate Court judgments, restoring the Family Court's decree. The ruling establishes that proved cruelty precludes the conversion of a decree to Khula and protects the wife's right to retain dower in such circumstances.
- Mst. Tasleem W/O Abdul Wahab & 05 others vs The State2023 SHC 618 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. Tajrian through legal heirs and 9 others vs Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Forest, Islamabad and 3 others2023 YLR 619 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sunila Mushtaq vs Babar Hussain and 7 others2023 PCRLJ 1787 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the 21st Judicial Magistrate, Karachi West, which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 509 and 506/2 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2013. The appellant alleged that the respondents, her relatives, harassed and threatened her amidst a property dispute. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was based on a proper appreciation of evidence or if it suffered from misreading or non-reading of evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted material contradictions in the testimonies, the absence of medical evidence for alleged violence, and the lack of specific details regarding the incidents. Emphasizing that an acquitted person enjoys a double presumption of innocence, the court affirmed that appellate interference is only warranted if the trial court’s decision is arbitrary or perverse. Finding no such illegality, the court concluded the dispute was essentially civil in nature and improperly criminalized.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
- Does an acquitted person enjoy a double presumption of innocence in an appeal against acquittal?
- Can a civil property dispute be converted into a criminal case through a direct complaint?
- Mst. Sumera Amir, Mumtaz Rizwan, Muhammad Mushtaq and others vs Province of Sindh and others2023 SHC 489 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Sumeera Saleem vs The State2023 MLD 1880 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the murder of her husband and two minor daughters. In the absence of eyewitnesses, the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including a suicidal note admitting the crime, forensic reports, and the appellant's presence at the crime scene. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and whether the burden of proof shifted to the appellant to explain the unnatural deaths occurring within her residence. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstances connecting the appellant to the crime. Applying the principle that where a death occurs within a shared residence, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the circumstances under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the Court found the appellant’s failure to offer any explanation fatal to her defense. Consequently, the conviction was maintained, as the circumstantial evidence, including the forensic confirmation of the appellant's handwriting on the confession, was deemed overwhelming.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof shift to an accused to explain an unnatural death occurring within their shared residence?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events is complete?
- Is a disclosure statement made while in police custody admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- Does the failure of an accused to offer an explanation for unnatural deaths in their presence strengthen the prosecution's case?
- Mst. Sobia Shaheen vs Muhammad Usman and another2023 MLD 279 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sidra-Tul vs Additional Sessions Judge, Muntaha Lahore etc.2023 LHC 6888, 2024 MLD 786 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shehnaz Bibi and another vs The State and another2023 LHC 5817, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 809 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by two women accused of murder under section 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, being women, were entitled to bail despite the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, noting the unexplained three-month delay in the registration of the FIR and the suspicious, belated production of forensic evidence by the complainant. The court emphasized that under the first proviso to section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail for women is the rule and refusal is the exception, applicable even in offences falling within the prohibitory clause, unless specific grounds for refusal—such as risk of abscondence, tampering with evidence, or repeating the offence—are established. Consequently, the court granted bail, finding the case required further inquiry. Additionally, the court issued directives regarding the mandatory constitutional requirement to inform arrested persons of the grounds of their arrest.
Questions settled- Is bail for a woman accused of an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to be granted as a rule?
- Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute a ground for further inquiry under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What are the exceptions that justify the refusal of bail for a woman accused of an offence falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Is the police legally obligated to provide the grounds of arrest to an accused person at the time of detention under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Mst. Shehla Naeem vs Chief Secretary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2023 PHC 313 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant (Assistant Professor), filed a constitutional petition challenging her transfer order, alleging it was improper and seeking reinstatement to her original post. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to entertain a petition regarding the transfer of a civil servant, given the constitutional bar on service matters. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the Court affirmed that matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction is a command that restricts High Courts from interfering in service-related disputes, even when allegations of mala fides are raised, as the Service Tribunal is the appropriate forum for such grievances. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction, while granting the petitioner liberty to approach the competent forum for redressal of her grievance.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition challenging the transfer of a civil servant?
- Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service?
- Can a civil servant challenge a transfer order on the grounds of mala fides before the High Court instead of the Service Tribunal?
- Is a transfer order considered a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
- Mst. Shazia Wajid W/o Wajid Ali vs Mst. Zeenat Khatoon and others2023 SHC 389 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sharifan Bibi (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others vs Mst. Irshad Bibi2023 CLC 673 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sharam Ellahi vs Additional District Judge and others2023 YLR 497 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sharaini Bibi and another vs Additional District Judge and 2 others2023 MLD 51 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shamshad Begum and others vs Mohammad Bashir and others2023 PHC 578 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shamim Akhter And Another vs Mst. Nazar Bhari And Another2023 SHC 928 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shameem Begum and others vs Syed Qaim Shah Bukhari and others2023 PHC 189, 2024 CLC 256 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shakira wife of Habib Ullah vs The State etc2023 PHC 231, 2023 P Cr. L J 1670 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the offence of Qatl-e-Amd under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court erred by failing to conduct a mandatory inquiry into the appellant’s mental capacity despite repeated applications and admissions regarding her mental illness. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which requires the court to determine an accused's capacity to stand trial when unsoundness of mind is raised. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court established that when a prima facie claim of mental incapacity is raised, the trial court must constitute a Standing Medical Board to evaluate the accused. The conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded with directions to conduct a formal inquiry into the appellant's mental state, ensuring medical expert testimony is recorded and subjected to cross-examination before proceeding with the trial.
Questions settled- Does a trial court have a mandatory duty to inquire into the mental capacity of an accused when a plea of unsoundness of mind is raised?
- Can a trial court form a subjective view regarding an accused's mental incapacity without seeking the opinion of a medical expert?
- What is the required procedure for a trial court when an accused claims mental illness under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mst. Shaista Bibi and another vs Brig. (R) Ijaz Bhatti & Others2023 SHC 152 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shahnaz Shafiq and 2 others vs Mst. Gulnar Khalid and 4 others2023 YLR 1329 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shahnaz Gul vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and another2023 PLC (C.S.) 328 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Lady Health Visitor, challenged her repatriation from the Health Department, Islamabad Capital Territory (I.C.T.) to her parent department in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, arguing that her husband's employment in Islamabad entitled her to remain on deputation under the wedlock policy and the proviso to Rule 20A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. The core legal question was whether a deputationist possesses a vested right to continue in a borrowing department based on the wedlock policy or the expiry of a deputation period. The Court held that a deputationist has no vested right to remain on a post indefinitely or for a specific period and may be repatriated at any time by the competent authority. The Court affirmed that the wedlock policy cannot override the borrowing department's right to repatriate a deputationist or the requirement to fill posts through prescribed competitive recruitment rules. The ratio established that sanctioned posts must be filled via merit-based competitive processes rather than indefinite deputation, and that public functionaries must adhere strictly to recruitment rules to ensure good governance and transparency.
Questions settled- Does a deputationist have a vested right to remain on a post for the entire duration of a deputation period?
- Can the wedlock policy be invoked to prevent the repatriation of a deputationist to their parent department?
- Is a borrowing department obligated to retain a deputationist against their will?
- Must sanctioned government posts be filled through competitive recruitment processes rather than indefinite deputation?
- Mst. Shahida Siddiqa, Allied Bank Limited through its President, etc vs Allied Bank Limited through its President, etc, Mst. Shahida Siddiqa2023 SCP 359, 2024 SCMR 92, 2024 PLC 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service matter appeal concerns the proportionality of a disciplinary penalty imposed on a bank employee dismissed for negligence. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in modifying the Labour Court’s decision—which had reinstated the employee in a lower grade—to one of compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s imposition of compulsory retirement was disproportionate and harsh, particularly given the appellant’s twenty-eight-year unblemished service record and the absence of proven embezzlement. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, restored the Labour Court’s decision of reinstatement in a lower grade, and further modified the order to grant the appellant back benefits. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary penalties must be proportionate to the degree of moral culpability associated with the offence. The Court emphasized that extreme penalties for acts of negligence, especially for long-serving employees, are contrary to the reformatory concept of punishment in the administration of justice and fail to balance the gravity of the wrong with the individual's service history.
Questions settled- Is a penalty of compulsory retirement proportionate for a bank employee found guilty of negligence but not embezzlement?
- Does the principle of proportionality require that disciplinary punishment reflect the degree of moral culpability?
- Can a court modify a disciplinary penalty to be more severe than that imposed by the Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal?
- Mst. Shahida Perveen etc vs Muhammad Akram Baig2023 LHC 2603, 2025 CLC 177 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shahida Parveen through Legal Heirs and others vs Saeed Ahmed and others2023 CLC 838 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shaheen Gul vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 SHC 1172 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant serving as a photographer in the National Highway and Motorway Police, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to challenge her transfer order, relying on an Office Memorandum concerning the posting of married female government servants. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain a constitutional petition by a civil servant regarding transfer and posting, or if such matters fall within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. The court held that the transfer and posting of a civil servant relate to the terms and conditions of service, and by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution and relevant service tribunal acts, the jurisdiction of the High Court is completely ousted, even where mala fides or illegality are alleged. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional bar under Article 212 ousts High Court jurisdiction over service matters, and civil servants must agitate such grievances before the appropriate Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a constitutional petition filed by a civil servant regarding transfer and posting?
- Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution apply when an order relating to terms and conditions of service is alleged to be mala fide or void?
- Do interlocutory departmental orders merge into the final order and fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- Does the entertainment of a previous writ petition without deciding maintainability create a binding precedent contrary to constitutional ouster?
- Mst. Shabeena Younas vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and 3 others2023 PLD Lahore 453 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shabana Kausar, The State vs The State, Mst. Shabana Kausar2023 LHC 5484, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 449 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of a minor and concealment of evidence. The prosecution’s case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including motive, extrajudicial confession, recovery of the body, and DNA analysis. The Court held that in cases of unseen occurrences, circumstantial evidence must form a continuous, unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime; any missing link mandates acquittal. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence unreliable: the motive was inconsistent, the extrajudicial confession was contradicted by the timing of the arrest, and the recovery of the body from a joint-possession area was insufficient for conviction. Furthermore, the DNA evidence was deemed unreliable due to a broken chain of custody and the fact that the appellant handled the evidence under duress. Emphasizing that the benefit of the doubt is a right, not a concession, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, answering the murder reference in the negative.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the chain of evidence is broken?
- Is an extrajudicial confession reliable if it contradicts the timing of the accused's arrest?
- Does the recovery of a dead body from a place in joint possession constitute sufficient evidence for a capital conviction?
- Is DNA evidence admissible if the chain of custody is not proven and the evidence was handled by the accused under duress?
- Mst. Shabana Hanif and another vs M/s. New Chali Trade Centre & another2023 SHC 1082 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Seema Yousaf etc. vs District Judge etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 212 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sara Akhtar, etc. vs Mehmood Khan, etc.2023 LHC 5185, 2024 YLR 2130 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Samina Zia vs Federation of Pakistan & others2023 LHC 6183 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Samina Kausar and others vs Mst. Nasreen Bibi and others2023 LHC 6258 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Samina Bibi vs Govt. of Punjab through Secretary etc.2023 LHC 2566 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Samina Begum vs Muhammad Haq Nawaz khan and 2 others2023 MLD 103 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sakina alias Sikko and others vs The State2023 MLD 366 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of three appellants for the possession of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellants were apprehended in a vehicle with substantial quantities of Cannabis (Charas) and subsequently sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of evidence regarding possession and knowledge of the contraband, the reliability of police witnesses in the absence of independent witnesses, and the appropriateness of the sentence. The Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the appellants were caught red-handed and failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Court affirmed that police evidence is reliable absent proven enmity and that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded by the special law. While upholding the conviction, the Court reduced the sentences to align with established judicial sentencing guidelines, applying the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 render police evidence sufficient for conviction without independent witnesses?
- Does the burden of proof shift to the accused to prove lack of knowledge regarding narcotics found in a vehicle under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Can a court reduce a sentence imposed by a trial court if it exceeds established judicial sentencing guidelines?
- Mst. Saima Noreen vs State and anotherPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 371, 2024 PLD Lahore 522 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 428 read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking to bring additional evidence in the form of Call Data Records (CDRs) on record in a pending narcotics appeal arising from a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act 1997. The core legal question was whether unverified photocopies of CDRs and the summoning of a telecom representative can be allowed as additional evidence at the appellate stage to prove the identity or presence of witnesses and accused at a crime scene. The Lahore High Court dismissed the application, holding that a CDR alone merely indicates the usage of a SIM within the jurisdiction of a cell tower and is inconclusive regarding the identity of the user without voice transcripts, audio recordings, and forensic analysis. The court laid down the principle that additional evidence at the appellate stage under Section 428 Cr.P.C. will not be permitted for evidence that was within the party's knowledge during trial but not produced, and that electronic records must be duly proved in accordance with the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016.
Questions settled- Can a Call Data Record (CDR) alone conclusively establish the identity and presence of a specific person at a crime scene without voice recordings and forensic analysis?
- Under what circumstances can additional evidence be produced at the appellate stage under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a printout of an automated information system admissible as primary evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- What are the mandatory legal requirements for proving audio tapes or video recordings before a court of law in Pakistan?
- Mst. Saima Naeem vs M/s Habib Bank Ltd. and another2023 LHC 459 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Saima Naeem vs Habib Bank Limited through Manager_Officer_Attorney and another2023 CLD 1244 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Saidan, etc. vs Muhammad Yousaf, etc.2023 LHC 4826, 2023 PLJ Lahore 900, 2024 YLR 1394 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sahja & others vs Muhammad Zaman, Province of Sindh & ors2023 SHC 986 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sadaf Rasheed vs Senior Civil Judge, etc2023 LHC 2265 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sadaf Rasheed vs Senior Civil Judge and others2023 PLD Lahore 412 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rukhsana vs Asif Ullah and others2023 PHC 199 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rubina Khatoon vs Asj/Jop, etc2023 LHC 6438, 2024 PLJ Lahore 476 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rozeena vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2023 CLC 427 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Robina Shehnaz, etc. vs Mukhtar Begum, etc.2023 LHC 168, 2023 PLJ Lahore 374, 2024 YLR 550, 2023 [M] CLR 141 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Resham Begum (deceased) through L.Rs. vs Kenth, etc.2023 LHC 909, 2024 YLR 40 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Razia Ameer vs State Life Insurance2023 CLD 1156 · Insurance Appellate Tribunal Punjab · 2023-06-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rajan Bibi etc vs Muhammad Saddique etc2023 LHC 517 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rainaz vs The State and another2023 PHC 159, 2024 PCRLJ 20 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Jail Criminal Appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the murder of her sister-in-law. The core legal question is whether a conviction can be sustained based solely on a retracted judicial confession and an alleged pointation of the crime scene, in the absence of independent corroborative evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It found that the Judicial Magistrate failed to ensure the voluntariness and truthfulness of the confession, having recorded it in a hurried manner without allowing the appellant, a young and illiterate girl, sufficient time to comprehend the proceedings. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the 'pointation' of the crime scene by the accused did not constitute a valid discovery under the law, as the police were already aware of the location and had previously prepared a site plan. The principle laid down is that a retracted confession requires independent, reliable corroboration to support a conviction, and evidence obtained through 'pointation' of a known location is inadmissible as a discovery under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on a retracted judicial confession without independent corroborative evidence?
- Does a pointation of a crime scene already known to the police constitute a valid discovery under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- What is the legal requirement for a Judicial Magistrate to ensure the voluntariness of a confessional statement?
- Is evidence obtained through 'pointation' of a location already documented in a site plan admissible as a discovery?
- Mst. Rabia jabeen vs The State2023 PHC 412 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rabia Gula and others vs Muhammad Janan and others2023 PLJ SC 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court setting aside concurrent judgments of the trial and appellate courts and decreeing the respondent's suit. The core legal questions involved whether a challenge to a 32-year-old gift mutation was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act 1908, and whether a subsequent sale mutation was validly proved. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the challenge to the gift mutation was barred by time, as the original donor had lived for 23 years after taking possession of the gifted property, constituting an actual denial of rights, and the respondent as legal heir could not claim a fresh period of limitation without proving the predecessor's ignorance of fraud under Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908. However, the Court upheld the High Court's finding invalidating the sale mutation due to the beneficiary's failure to prove the essential ingredients of the sale transaction and payment of consideration. The appeal was partially allowed, dismissing the suit regarding the gift mutation and decreeing it regarding the sale mutation.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for challenging a fraudulent transaction restart from the date of knowledge of the legal heir when the original predecessor had knowledge or lived during the period?
- Does taking over possession of property on the basis of a gift or sale mutation constitute an actual denial of proprietary rights for the purpose of limitation?
- Can the benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908 be invoked without specific assertions and particulars of fraud pleaded in the plaint?
- What is the evidential burden required to prove a sale transaction and sale mutation when the purported seller denies the transaction in court?
- Mst. Raana Alwi and another vs District And Sessions Judge, East Karachi2023 PLD Sindh 248 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Qabala vs Muhammad Shafi Khan and other2023 PHC 614 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nooran Mai through legal heirs vs Shafqat Ali2023 YLR 57 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Noor Jehan vs Ubaid Ullah and another2023 MLD 168 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nighat Waheed and others vs Arif Latif2023 CLC 543 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nazeer Bibi and another vs Higher Education Commission, Islamabad2023 CLC 1860 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naz Bibi through L.Rs. and others vs Wahid Bux through L.Rs. and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1346, 2023 PLD Sindh 321 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a civil dispute over the inheritance of service benefits and National Saving Certificates left by the deceased employee, contested between his widow and his brother. The core legal questions involve whether the service benefits and National Saving Certificates form part of the estate (tarkah) of the deceased and are thus inheritable by all legal heirs, and whether a nominee of National Saving Certificates becomes the exclusive owner or holds them as a trustee. The High Court held that property owned by the deceased during his lifetime or claimable as an absolute right forms part of tarkah and is inheritable, meaning National Saving Certificates form part of tarkah and nomination does not defeat the legal heirs' rights. However, service benefits such as gratuity, severance grants, and benevolent funds that do not fall due during the employee's lifetime or are in the nature of grants, bounties, or compensation do not form part of tarkah and are payable strictly in accordance with the employer's service rules and regulations. The appeal was partly allowed, maintaining the lower appellate court's finding regarding National Saving Certificates while setting aside the award of service benefits to the brother.
Questions settled- Whether National Saving Certificates left by a deceased person form part of his estate or tarkah for the purpose of inheritance?
- Does the nomination of a person in National Saving Certificates confer absolute title or ownership, or does the nominee act merely as a trustee for the legal heirs?
- Whether service benefits such as severance grants, gratuity, and benevolent funds constitute part of the tarkah of a deceased employee?
- Are service benefits that do not fall due during the lifetime of an employee inheritable according to personal law or payable strictly under the employer's service rules and regulations?
- Mst. Nawab Bibi (deceased) through L.Rs vs Hakim Ali and others2023 LHC 5523, 2024 PLJ Lahore 160, 2024 CLC 895 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naureen Masood etc vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad etc2023 PHC 600 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Nasreen Bibi vs District Police Officer etc.2023 LHC 4601, 2023 PLJ Lahore 854 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasreen Bibi etc. vs Arbab Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. through its Chairman2023 IHC 144 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-09-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naseem Ishaq and others vs Khizar Hayat and others2023 PLJ Peshawar 82, 2023 PLD Peshawar 133 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naseem Bibi vs District Education Officer (F) Shangla and others2023 PHC 394 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed challenging an order withdrawing the petitioner's appointment as a Naib Qasid (Class-IV) on the quota for children of government servants retired on medical grounds. The core legal questions were whether a married daughter remains eligible for employment under Rule 10(4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1989 in light of an departmental policy clarification, and whether the authority could withdraw an illegal appointment order under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under the government's policy clarification, a married daughter loses financial dependency on her father and is ineligible for appointment unless judicially or customarily separated. The Court ruled that the policy clarification was consistent with Rule 10(4) and Section 26(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act 1973, and under Section 20 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act 1956, an illegal order grants no perpetual rights and may be rescinded.
Questions settled- Is a married daughter eligible for appointment under the quota for children of civil servants retired on medical grounds under Rule 10(4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1989?
- Can an administrative departmental policy clarification supplement statutory civil service rules without being inconsistent with them?
- Does the doctrine of locus poenitentiae prevent an appointing authority from rescinding an appointment order if the appointee was ineligible at the time of appointment?
- Can a High Court interfere with a departmental policy decision in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
- Mst. Namoo Bibi and others vs Sardar Allah Yar Hiraj (Deceased) through Legal Heirs and others2023 MLD 1630 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Nadra Jamil Siddiqui vs Munir Ahmed and 2 others2023 CLC 198 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nadia vs The State2023 YLR 171 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a post-arrest bail application filed by two female petitioners who were arrested following the recovery of a large quantity of charas and opium from secret cavities of a motorcar in which they were travelling as passengers. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail when no direct recovery of narcotics was made from their personal possession and their conscious knowledge of the concealed contraband required further inquiry, coupled with their personal circumstances of pregnancy and having a suckling infant. The Peshawar High Court held that in the absence of prima facie evidence establishing conscious knowledge or nexus with the concealed narcotics, the petitioners' case fell within the scope of further inquiry, making them eligible for bail. Additionally, the court highlighted Islamic jurisprudence and binding precedents regarding the protection and welfare of pregnant women and suckling children. The court laid down the principle that passengers travelling in a vehicle without direct recovery or proven conscious knowledge of concealed contraband are entitled to further probe, and that pregnancy or the responsibility of a suckling child are significant humanitarian and Islamic grounds for granting bail.
Questions settled- Whether passengers travelling in a vehicle are entitled to post-arrest bail when narcotics are recovered from secret cavities of the vehicle rather than from their direct personal possession?
- Does the absence of prima facie evidence regarding conscious knowledge of concealed contraband bring the case of an accused within the scope of further inquiry under criminal law?
- Whether pregnancy and the care of a suckling infant constitute valid grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail in serious criminal cases?
- Mst. Nadia Bibi vs Asad Khan and others2023 CLC 2055 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nadara Parveen etc. vs Additional District Judge etc.2023 LHC 2994 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Musarrat vs Muhammad Shafi and others2023 MLD 175 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Musarat vs Aziz Ahmad and others2023 PLD Peshawar 88 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. Musarat Parveen vs Muhammad Yousaf and others2023 SCP 252, 2024 PLJ SC 322, 2023 SCMR 1665, 2023 PLJ SC 586 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for declaration, specific performance, permanent injunction, and consequential relief. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents. Instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner, who was an active party to the suit, filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which was dismissed. The petitioner's subsequent appeal was dismissed as time-barred, and the High Court dismissed the civil revision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the concurrent findings, holding that Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is inapplicable to a party who actively participated in and had knowledge of the suit. The Court reiterated that the law of limitation is not a mere technicality but a foundational legal principle designed to bar stale claims. Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is discretionary and requires a diligent, day-by-day explanation of the delay, which the petitioner failed to provide.
Questions settled- Can a party who actively participated in and had knowledge of a suit challenge the decree under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 instead of filing a regular appeal?
- Whether time spent pursuing an incorrect remedy before a wrong forum can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 without proving good faith and due diligence?
- Is the law of limitation a mere technicality, or does it serve as a foundational legal impediment to stale claims?
- Mst. Mukhtar Begum, etc. vs Mst. Mumtaz Asghar (deceased) through L.Rs., etc2023 PLJ Lahore 286 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Mujahida Bibi vs The State etc.2023 PHC 370 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Muhammad Bibi vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Director Education School (Female) Peshawar and others2023 PHC 151, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 547 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the mother of a deceased civil servant seeking the payment of pension and other service-related benefits following the murder of her daughter. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether the period of service rendered on a contract or temporary basis prior to regularisation can be counted towards the qualifying period for pensionary benefits when the employee has not independently completed the mandatory ten years of regular service. The Peshawar High Court held that a civil servant must independently complete the prescribed ten years of regular service to qualify for pension, and while previous temporary or contractual service can be added to calculate the quantum of pension once eligibility is established, it cannot be used to fulfill the initial ten-year qualifying threshold. Applying this principle, since the deceased had served less than five years as a regular employee following her regularisation, her previous contract service could not be counted to make up the shortfall, rendering her ineligible for pension. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the legal heirs of a deceased civil servant file a constitutional petition for pensionary benefits?
- Whether service rendered on a contract or temporary basis can be counted toward the qualifying period for pension eligibility?
- Does Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations allow the addition of contractual service to meet the mandatory ten-year regular service threshold for pension?
- Can previous contractual service be added to regular service solely for calculating the quantum of pension after the independent qualifying period is met?
- Mst. Miraj Bibi and 5 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Attorney2023 YLR 53 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Massarrat Abid vs The State and 3 others2023 MLD 342 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court acquitting respondents of charges relating to cheating, fraud, and criminal breach of trust. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court's acquittal order was perverse, arbitrary, or suffered from non-appraisal of evidence warranting interference by the appellate court. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that no element of cheating or criminal breach of trust was established against the respondents as the financial transaction was executed with an absconding co-accused. The court laid down the principle that an acquittal order carries a double presumption of innocence and cannot be set aside merely on the possibility of a contrary view unless the impugned judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or borders on impossibility, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
- Does an acquittal order carry a double presumption of innocence?
- Can an order of acquittal be recalled merely on the possibility of a contrary view?
- What is the effect of a reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person regarding the guilt of an accused?