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.

• Meeru Khan vs Mst. Naheed Aziz Siddiqui & others2023 SCP 304, 2024 PLJ SC 331, 2023 PLD Supreme Court 912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-13
  court fee deficiencySection 149 CPClimitationprocedural justicesecond appealsubstantial justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed a Second Appeal as time-barred, despite the petitioner having previously paid the requisite court fee pursuant to the court's own order. The core legal question was whether an appeal can be dismissed as time-barred after the court has exercised its discretion under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to allow the payment of deficient court fees, and such payment has been duly made. The Supreme Court held that Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is a beneficial provision intended to facilitate justice rather than obstruct it. Once a court grants time to make up a deficiency in court fees and the litigant complies within the stipulated period, the document is deemed to have been filed with the correct fee from the outset. Consequently, the High Court’s dismissal was erroneous. The Court reaffirmed that procedural technicalities should not be used to defeat substantive rights, and that courts must ensure substantial justice is served rather than penalizing litigants for procedural deficiencies that have been rectified.

  Questions settled

  • Does the payment of deficient court fees within the time granted by the court under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 relate back to the date of the initial filing?
  • Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal as time-barred after it has already granted time to make up a court fee deficiency and the appellant has complied with that order?
  • What is the scope of the court's discretion under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the payment of deficient court fees?
  • Is a court required to provide an opportunity to make up a deficiency in court fees before rejecting a plaint or appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Meeran Shah and 2 others vs The State2023 MLD 952 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-15
  post-arrest bailillegal sale of government medicinescriminal breach of trustanti-corruptionprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves three post-arrest bail applications filed by the applicants, Meeran Shah, Haresh Kumar, and Kouro, arising out of Crime No.05 of 2020 registered at Police Station ACE Ghotki for offences under sections 409 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification) Act / Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (or Act-II of 1947). The core legal question revolves around whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the recovery of government-stamped medicines from their possession and the gravity of the offences charged. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants were prima facie connected with the commission of the offence through direct attribution and huge recovery of government medicines, and that the offences fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court dismissed the bail applications, establishing the principle that individuals involved in stealing and illegally trading government medical supplies intended for poor patients, causing loss to the exchequer, are not entitled to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused found in possession of huge quantities of stolen government medicines during an arrest is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Do offences involving the illegal sale and purchase of government-stamped medicines fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether deeper appreciation of evidence is permissible while deciding a post-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Meera Shafi vs Ali Zafar2023 PLD Supreme Court 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-21
  Video conferencingRecording evidenceCivil procedureCross-examinationUpdating construction of statutesInherent powers of courtQanun-e-Shahadat OrderCode of Civil ProcedureVirtual attendanceAccess to justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court considered whether the evidence of a witness not physically present in court can be recorded in a civil case via video conferencing within the existing legal framework. The case arose from a defamation suit where the petitioner, residing in Canada, sought to complete her cross-examination virtually. The Court held that the word "attendance" in Rule 4 of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, includes "virtual attendance" through video conferencing, applying the principle of "updating construction" of statutes to adapt law to technological advancements. It further ruled that courts can exercise inherent powers under Section 151 of the C.P.C. and Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, to allow such evidence when necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process, particularly to avoid unreasonable delay, expense, or inconvenience. The Court allowed the petitioner's application, setting aside the lower courts' orders, and clarified that guidelines for video conferencing are discretionary.

  Questions settled

  • Can evidence of a witness who is not physically present in court be recorded in a civil case by using video conferencing within the existing legal framework?
  • Does the word "attendance" used in Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 include "virtual attendance" through video conferencing?
  • Can a court make an order for the virtual attendance of a witness in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the term "evidence" in Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, include oral evidence of a witness that may become available because of modern techniques like video conferencing?
  • What conditions must courts consider when exercising discretion to allow recording of evidence through video conferencing?
  Read full judgment →
• Meer Muhammad vs The State2023 PCRLJ 885 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-28
  criminal appealmurderocular evidencebenefit of doubtdelayed FIRrelated witnessesacquittalSection 161 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder under sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the provided ocular evidence. The High Court found that the prosecution's case suffered from significant flaws, including the unnatural conduct of the alleged eye-witnesses, who were relatives of the deceased, and an unexplained delay of over seven hours in lodging the FIR. Furthermore, the court noted that the statements of the witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were recorded with substantial, unexplained delays, rendering their testimony unreliable. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, and the benefit of the doubt was extended to the appellant. The court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant, reaffirming the principle that even a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's version entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create a reasonable doubt regarding the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Can the testimony of related witnesses be discarded if it lacks corroboration and is inconsistent with the circumstances?
  • Is an unexplained delay in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does the failure of eye-witnesses to assist victims or report an occurrence promptly render their presence at the scene doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Mckinsey and Companies Pakistan (Private) Limited through Authorized2023 CLD 530 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-13Read full judgment →
• Mckinsey & Companies Pakistan (Private) Limited vs Securities & Exchange2023 SHC 18 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• McCulloch and others vs Forth Valley Health Board2023 SCMR 1609 · Supreme Court of United Kingdom · 2023-07-12Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs Zahid Ali2023 SHC 1020 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-29
  trans-provincial organizationpayment of wageslegislative competenceprovincial legislaturefederal legislative listconstitutional jurisdictionterritorial limitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged an order passed by the Authority Constituted under the Payment of Wages Act, 2015 (South), which had dismissed the petitioner bank's application regarding a lack of jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Legislature possesses the legislative competence to enact laws concerning the payment of wages for employees working within the province when the employer is a trans-provincial organization. The court held that while trans-provincial entities generally fall under federal legislative competence pursuant to Entries 58 and 59 of the Federal Legislative List, the subject matter of payment of wages and labor welfare is within the provincial domain post-the Eighteenth Amendment. Since the employee's services were based locally within the province, the provincial statute applies territorially. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the authority's jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Provincial Legislature has the competence to enact legislation regarding the payment of wages in respect of employees serving a trans-provincial entity within the province?
  • Does the status of an employer as a trans-provincial organization automatically exclude its employees from the application of provincial labor and wage legislation?
  • How do Entries 58 and 59 of Part-I of the Federal Legislative List affect the legislative competence of provinces regarding matters crossing provincial boundaries?
  Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs The Federation of Pakistan etc2023 LHC 13 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs Tariq Ahmed Khan Lodhi and others2023 CLD 627 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-17Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs Tanveer Spinning and Weaving Mills and others2023 CLD 491 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-16Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs M/s Mazco Industries PrivateLimited etc.2023 LHC 1039 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-07Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs M/s Highland Shoes Limited and others2023 IHC 252 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs Messrs Mazco Industries Private Limited and others2023 CLD 410 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-07Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 240 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs Adeel Shahbaz Steel Mills and others2023 LHC 2922, 2023 PLJ Lahore 617, 2023 CLD 655 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-07
  territorial jurisdictionbanking suitrecovery of financesreturn of plaintcause of actionleave to defendfinancial institution
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was filed by MCB Bank Limited against Adeel Shahbaz Steel Mills and its partners and guarantors for the recovery of Rs.103,007,781.63 under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question concerned whether the Lahore High Court possessed the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, given that the finance agreements were executed in Hattar and Islamabad, and the defendants resided or carried on business outside Lahore, despite the registered office of the Defendant Company being in Rawalpindi. The Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Consequently, the Court ordered the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for presentation before a court of competent jurisdiction. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a court must determine the question of its own jurisdiction as a preliminary matter before proceeding to the merits. It further clarified that while a registered office is a relevant factor, territorial jurisdiction is primarily determined by where the cause of action arises, where the defendant resides, or where they carry on business.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have a mandatory duty to decide the question of its own jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of a case?
  • Is the registered office of a company the sole determinant for establishing territorial jurisdiction in a banking suit?
  • Under what circumstances must a court return a plaint for presentation before a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Does a Banking Court have the power to follow the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 is silent?
  Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited through Authorized Attorney vs Federation of Pakistan2023 CLD 333, 2023 [M] CLR 135 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Rasool Hashmi vs Government of the Punjab and others2023 CLC 1201 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain Asif vs Province of Punjab etc2023 LHC 2504 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain and others vs Mst. Jantan Bibi and others2023 LHC 1598 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Ali and another vs The State2023 MLD 1677 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-14
  murderabetmentcriminal conspiracypolice encounter confessionvideo recording admissibilitybenefit of doubtfirearm recoveryocular testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder, abetment, and under the Sindh Arms Act. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of a video-recorded statement made before a police officer without procedural safeguards, and the proof required for criminal conspiracy and abetment. The Sindh High Court held that while the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the main appellant beyond reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and weapon recovery, the case against the co-appellant accused of instigation was fraught with unexplained delays, inadmissible video evidence obtained without legal warnings or compliance with statutory disclosure rules, and insufficient proof of abetment. The court maintained the conviction and sentence of the main appellant with a modification regarding compensation, while acquitting the co-appellant on the benefit of doubt. The key principles laid down include that a conviction for abetment or conspiracy requires independent reliable evidence demonstrating a conscious agreement or direct consequence, and that video recordings of confessions made before police officers without observing mandatory legal safeguards are inadmissible.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for abetment be sustained without independent evidence proving that the offence was committed in consequence of the abetment?
  • Is a video-recorded conversation admitting guilt made before a police officer admissible as evidence when statutory disclosure and warning requirements are not met?
  • Whether failure to provide copies of documentary evidence under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates its use against the accused?
  • Does the mere existence of call data records showing telephonic contact between accused persons establish criminal conspiracy without a transcript of conversation?
  Read full judgment →
• Masud Reza vs The Federation of Pakistan through President & othersPTCL 2023 CL. 891, 2025 PTD 451 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
• Masooda Iqbal, Elementary Teacher, Government Girls Middle School Aahi, District Bhimber and another vs Secretary Elementary & Secondary Education, Muzaffarabad and 7 others2023 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 131, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1085 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-03-20
  service appealnon-compliancesecurity feedismissal for non-prosecutiontransfer orderprocedural compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellants' service appeal due to non-compliance with court orders regarding the payment of a security fee. The appellants had challenged a transfer order before the Service Tribunal, which admitted the appeal for hearing but directed the appellants to deposit a security fee within a specified timeframe. Despite being granted multiple opportunities and clear directions to deposit the fee, the appellants failed to comply. On the date fixed for the hearing, neither the appellants nor their counsel appeared, leading the Service Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal under these circumstances. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the Tribunal acted correctly given the appellants' persistent failure to comply with lawful court directions without providing any plausible justification. The principle laid down is that a judicial forum is empowered to dismiss proceedings where a party fails to comply with mandatory procedural orders despite sufficient opportunity.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Service Tribunal justified in dismissing an appeal where the appellant fails to deposit a court-ordered security fee?
  • Can a Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal for non-compliance with procedural orders when the appellant fails to appear on the date of hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Masood Ahmed Khan vs Khalid Anwar Khan and 2 others2023 CLC 176 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-17Read full judgment →
• Masood Ahmad Bhatti and another vs Khan Badshah and another2023 SCP 378, 2024 SCMR 168, 2024 PLJ SC 292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-16
  specific performanceagreement to sellreadiness and willingnesssale considerationcontractual obligationsdiscretionary reliefvendor and vendee
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment upholding a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell commercial property. The core legal question was whether the vendors were justified in refusing the balance sale consideration on the grounds that the pay orders were issued by third parties rather than the vendee's personal account, and whether the vendee demonstrated sufficient readiness and willingness to perform. The Supreme Court held that the agreements contained no stipulation requiring payment exclusively from the vendee's personal account. The Court found that the vendee had consistently demonstrated readiness and willingness by arranging the necessary funds and depositing them in court upon the vendors' refusal to accept payment. Consequently, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the vendors' refusal was unjustified and the vendee was entitled to specific performance. The principle laid down is that a vendee seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and capability to fulfill contractual obligations, and where a vendor refuses to accept payment, the vendee must deposit the consideration in court to satisfy the requirement of readiness.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement to sell require the vendee to pay the sale consideration exclusively from their personal bank account in the absence of an express contractual clause?
  • What is the legal consequence when a vendor refuses to accept the balance sale consideration offered by the vendee?
  • Is the deposit of the balance sale consideration in court sufficient to establish the vendee's readiness and willingness for the purpose of specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Maskeen Ullah and another vs The State and another2023 SCMR 1568, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-06-14
  qatl-i-amddeath sentencemitigating circumstancesabscondenceocular accountmedical evidenceacquittal of co-accuseddelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from a jail petition and a connected petition for enhancement of sentence concerning a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd. The core legal questions involve the reliability of related ocular witnesses, the effect of delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem, the corroborative value of abscondence, and whether the acquittal of a co-accused warrants identical relief for the principal offender, alongside the validity of mitigating circumstances for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court held that prompt lodging of the FIR explained any initial delay, that related eyewitnesses were consistent and reliable when corroborated by medical evidence and unexplained abscondence, and that the acquittal of a co-accused attributed with no overt acts does not benefit the active assailant. Furthermore, unestablished motive and lack of crime empty recoveries are recognized mitigating circumstances justifying the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of close relatives as eye-witnesses can be relied upon in the absence of previous enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused who caused no injury entitle the principal offender to claim the same benefit of acquittal?
  • Can unestablished motive and absence of crime empty recoveries serve as valid mitigating circumstances for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Does unexplained and willful abscondence of an accused corroborate the ocular account of the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Mashooque vs The State2023 MLD 749 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-25
  Qatl-i-amddeath sentence reductionunproven motivemitigating circumstanceseyewitness testimonycriminal appealQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence for the murder of Muhammad Amin. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of evidence for conviction and the appropriateness of the death penalty where the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the eyewitness testimony credible, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon. However, regarding the sentence, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to examine the wife of the appellant—the subject of the alleged motive—thereby invoking an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984. The Court held that when the prosecution asserts a motive but fails to prove it, this failure constitutes a significant mitigating circumstance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal regarding the conviction but partly allowed it regarding the sentence, reducing the death penalty to imprisonment for life, noting that maintaining the capital sentence was unwarranted in the absence of a proven motive.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an alleged motive in a murder case necessitate a reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can an adverse presumption be drawn against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 when a material witness related to the motive is not examined?
  • Is the evidence of close relatives of the deceased automatically discarded in criminal trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Market Committee, Multan through its Chairman and another vs Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), (In all cases) Multan and others2023 SCP 266, 2023 SCMR 1683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-13
  market committeeallotment cancellationdefault in paymentremandestoppelacquiescenceapprobate and reprobateconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comprises twenty-nine civil petitions for leave to appeal directed against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court, which disposed of writ petitions filed by the Market Committee regarding the cancellation of plots and shops in the New Fruit & Vegetable Market, Multan. The core legal question involved the legality of the cancellation of plot allotments due to prolonged defaults in payment by allottees, alongside the effect of the Market Committee subsequently accepting payments without demur during the litigation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no irregularity or perversity in setting aside the cancellation orders and remanding the matter to the Chairman of the Market Committee to determine outstanding dues, surcharges, and penalties after affording a right of audience. The Court laid down the principle that public bodies cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting payments during proceedings while simultaneously pursuing cancellation, and their delayed, cavalier actions coupled with the acceptance of payments without objection attract the doctrines of estoppel and acquiescence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Market Committee cancel plot allotments for non-payment after delaying action for years and accepting payments from defaulters without objection?
  • Whether the High Court can properly resolve disputed facts and reconcile accounts in constitutional jurisdiction or if remanding the matter to the competent authority is appropriate?
  • Does the acceptance of outstanding dues by a public body during pending litigation amount to a waiver of the right to cancel an allotment?
  • How do the doctrines of estoppel and acquiescence apply to the conduct of public bodies in commercial allotment disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood and another vs The State2023 MLD 1938 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-15
  criminal appealidentification paradebenefit of doubtevidentiary valuecorroborationacquittalPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 397 and 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically the identification parade, in the absence of corroborating ocular or circumstantial proof. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It observed that the identification parade was conducted with an unexplained delay of eleven days after the appellants' arrest, rendering it legally defective and devoid of evidentiary value. The Court emphasized that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on an identification parade without independent corroboration, particularly when the complainant's initial statement did not describe the appellants. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, affirming the principle that any reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of an accused must be resolved in their favor as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does an identification parade conducted with an eleven-day delay after arrest possess sufficient evidentiary value to sustain a conviction?
  • Can a conviction be maintained solely on the basis of an identification parade without corroboration by ocular account or strong circumstantial evidence?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution evidence is riddled with discrepancies?
  • Must a trial court evaluate the prosecution evidence and the defense version in juxtaposition when the accused raises a specific plea?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Alam, Mukhtar Ahmed, complainant vs The State etc.,Maqsood Alam etc2023 SCP 332, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 72, 2024 SCMR 154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  criminal appealbenefit of the doubtocular accountmedical evidencecorroborationprivate complaintmurderacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged a High Court judgment that maintained the petitioner's conviction for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner's conviction could be sustained based solely on the testimony of eye-witnesses when that same evidence had been rejected by the trial court regarding a co-accused, and when medical and documentary evidence contradicted the prosecution's narrative. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the ocular account was inconsistent with medical evidence regarding the firing distance and contradicted by the complainant's attendance records. Furthermore, since the eye-witnesses were disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused, their testimony required independent corroboration to convict the petitioner, which was absent. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the petitioner, reiterating the principle that any doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused, and that conviction must rest on unimpeachable, trustworthy evidence rather than speculative accounts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of eye-witnesses if that same testimony has been rejected by the trial court regarding a co-accused?
  • Does a contradiction between medical evidence and the ocular account regarding the firing distance cast sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal?
  • Is independent corroboration required to convict an accused when the primary eye-witnesses are deemed unreliable regarding other co-accused?
  • Does the benefit of the doubt apply to an accused when the prosecution's case lacks unimpeachable and trustworthy evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmed Khan, Sub-Engineer Office of the Project Manager2023 PSC 54 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  service tribunalpromotion quotastudy leaveno objection certificateaggrieved personlocus standiforged documentcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated appeals by leave of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir arise from judgments of the Service Tribunal concerning service disputes over promotion quotas and rule amendments for Assistant Engineers (B-17) in the Local Government and Rural Development Department. The core legal questions involved the validity of B.Tech (Hons) degrees obtained by sub-engineers during service without official study leave or a No Objection Certificate (NOC), their eligibility for promotion against a reserved 15% quota, the legality of rule amendments deleting said quota, and whether the claimants qualified as 'aggrieved persons' under the law. The Supreme Court held that degrees acquired without departmental permission, study leave, or a genuine NOC constitute an ill-gotten gain and confer no legal right to promotion, rendering the claimants without locus standi as aggrieved persons under Section 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975. The Court laid down that civil servants cannot claim promotion rights based on academic qualifications enhanced in violation of departmental leave and NOC requirements, and that production of fabricated NOCs before courts warrants strict civil and criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant who acquires a B.Tech (Hons) degree without obtaining study leave or a valid No Objection Certificate from the department is eligible for promotion against a reserved promotion quota?
  • Does a civil servant lacking valid qualification and departmental permission qualify as an aggrieved person with locus standi to file an appeal under Section 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975?
  • Whether the Local Government Department employees fall within the ambit of the Study Leave Rules, 1991?
  • What legal consequences follow when a party attempts to rely on a forged No Objection Certificate before a court of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmed Khan, Sub-Engineer Office of the Project Manager2023 SC AJK 3 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-01-11
  service lawpromotion quotalocus standiaggrieved personstudy leaveforged documentsill-gotten gaindepartmental rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns service appeals regarding promotion quotas for Sub-Engineers in the Local Government and Rural Development Department. The core legal question was whether employees who acquired B.Tech (Hons) degrees without obtaining mandatory departmental No Objection Certificates (NOC) or study leave were eligible for promotion against a reserved quota. Additionally, the Court examined whether these employees had locus standi to challenge departmental promotion notifications. The Supreme Court held that degrees obtained without requisite departmental permission constitute ill-gotten gains and confer no legal right to promotion. Consequently, the Court determined that the appellants, lacking valid qualifications, were not aggrieved persons under the law and lacked standing to challenge the promotions of others. The Court further noted that one appellant had submitted a forged NOC, directing the department to initiate legal proceedings. The principle laid down is that civil servants cannot derive benefits from qualifications acquired in violation of departmental rules, and such unauthorized degrees do not establish a legal right to promotion or standing to challenge service-related notifications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant who acquires a degree without obtaining a mandatory No Objection Certificate or study leave is eligible for promotion against a reserved quota?
  • Does a civil servant who lacks the required qualifications for a post have the locus standi to challenge the promotion of others to that post?
  • Can a civil servant claim a right to promotion based on an educational qualification obtained in violation of departmental service rules?
  • Is the production of a forged No Objection Certificate by a civil servant sufficient grounds for the initiation of criminal and civil proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Khan etc vs Assistant Commissioner, Lower Kurram, Sadda &2023 PHC 215, 2024 CLC 518 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-16Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed vs The State2023 MLD 578 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-14
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencecontradictory testimonyFIR delayacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court, which convicted the appellant under sections 365-B, 511, and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the significant delay in lodging the FIR, material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and the unreliable identification of the accused. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the medical evidence regarding the distance of the fire shot and the duration of hospitalization contradicted the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, the court observed that the identification of the accused in dark conditions using a lantern was implausible, and the prosecution witnesses made dishonest improvements during the trial. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in criminal cases, any reasonable doubt arising from the evidence must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not as a matter of grace or concession.

  Questions settled

  • Does a material conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution witnesses make dishonest and deliberate improvements during the trial?
  • Is an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging an FIR sufficient to cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Must the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused as a matter of right rather than grace?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed vs The State, etc2023 LHC 580 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-08
  dishonoured chequeSection 489-F PPCdishonestymens reabest evidence rulecriminal appealacquittalQanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a Magistrate's acquittal of the respondent in a case registered under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the essential ingredients of the offence, specifically the existence of a valid loan or obligation and the accused's dishonest intention at the time of issuance. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the underlying loan transaction, noting significant evidentiary gaps and the failure to produce the alleged written loan agreement. The Court emphasized that for Section 489-F to apply, the prosecution must demonstrate both a valid obligation and the accused's dishonest intent. Dishonesty is a state of mind (mens rea) to be inferred from the accused's course of action (an objective test). Furthermore, the Court reiterated that documentary evidence, when available, constitutes the "best evidence" and must be produced, as oral assertions cannot substitute for required documentation. The judgment affirms that acquittal should not be disturbed unless the finding is perverse or arbitrary.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is "dishonesty" under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a subjective state of mind or an objective course of action?
  • Does the failure to produce a written agreement mentioned in testimony violate the "best evidence rule" under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • What is the criteria for interfering with a judgment of acquittal in a criminal appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed vs State, etc.PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 581 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-08
  dishonoured chequeacquittal appealloan transactionburden of proofdishonestymens reabest evidence rulemarginal witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonouring of a cheque. The core legal questions involved the failure of the prosecution to prove the underlying loan transaction, the necessity of producing marginal witnesses to a written agreement under Article 79 and Article 139 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 489-F PPC, particularly the requirement of establishing dishonesty as a state of mind. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the foundational monetary transaction, the execution of the loan agreement, and the requisite dishonest intention on the part of the accused at the time of issuing the cheque. The court laid down the principle that to attract Section 489-F PPC, the prosecution must strictly prove the underlying loan or obligation and the element of dishonesty, failing which an acquittal must be sustained as findings of acquittal command double presumption of innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution must prove the underlying monetary transaction and loan agreement to sustain a conviction under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is dishonesty an essential ingredient and a state of mind that must be affirmatively established for the applicability of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the evidentiary requirement for proving a written document under Article 79 and Article 139 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • What are the strict criteria and grounds required for an appellate court to interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed Solangi vs Board of Revenue through Chairman and others2023 YLR 1431 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-03Read full judgment →
• Manzurul Haq vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2023 LHC 6154 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-27Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs The State etc2023 LHC 6754, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 822, 2024 PCRLJ 2036 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-07
  ArshDamansuspension of sentenceexecution of sentencecriminal revisionpost-conviction releasestatutory procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge allowing convicts to deposit Arsh and Daman under protest to secure their release from jail pending appeal. The core legal question is whether a trial court possesses the jurisdiction to permit a convict to deposit compensation amounts under protest to bypass the statutory requirements for suspension of sentence. The Court held that upon conviction, a sentence of imprisonment must be executed unless deferred or suspended under specific provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, namely Section 382-A or Section 426. The Court ruled that it is impermissible for a trial court to allow a convict to deposit Diyat, Arsh, or Daman under protest as a mechanism for release. Consequently, the trial court's order was declared illegal and set aside, as any deviation from the prescribed statutory procedure for suspension of sentence constitutes an act without lawful authority. The principle laid down is that the execution of a sentence is mandatory upon conviction, and release pending appeal can only occur through strict adherence to the statutory mechanisms for suspension.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court allow a convict to deposit Arsh and Daman under protest to secure release from jail pending appeal?
  • Is it permissible for a trial court to deviate from the prescribed procedures for suspension of sentence under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the submission of bail bonds under Section 382-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amount to surrendering before the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs Government Of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Punjab Lahore and others2023 YLR 64 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-27Read full judgment →
• Manzoor and another vs The State and another2023 YLR 1170 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-03
  criminal appealocular evidencebenefit of doubtdying declarationrelated witnessacquittalcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Swabi, convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) and Section 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt based on the ocular account of a related witness and the dying declaration of the deceased. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The Court found the ocular testimony of the sole eye-witness unreliable due to his unnatural conduct and lack of corroboration. Furthermore, the Court determined that the report lodged by the deceased could not be treated as a dying declaration because the medical officer did not confirm it was recorded in his presence. The Court emphasized that when prosecution evidence lacks corroboration and contains significant gaps—such as the failure to produce forensic reports or key witnesses—the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, rendering the revision petition for sentence enhancement infructuous.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a closely related eye-witness be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure to produce a forensic report regarding recovered weapon empties create reasonable doubt in a murder case?
  • Can a report lodged by an injured person be treated as a dying declaration if the medical officer does not confirm it was recorded in his presence?
  • Is the unnatural conduct of an eye-witness, such as abandoning an injured relative, a valid ground to discredit their testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmed vs Abdul Shakoor & others2023 SHC 244 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad, etc. vs Khalid Hassan Khan, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 234 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad, etc vs Khalid Hassan Khan, etc2023 LHC 36 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs State etc.2023 PLJ Cr.C. 160 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-14
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtmurder trialcriminal appealchain of circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rendered by the trial court. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully proved its case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last seen, an extra-judicial confession, and recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the crime, as the last-seen evidence was shrouded in mystery and uncorroborated, the extra-judicial confession lacked credibility and independent corroboration, and material witnesses were withheld. The Court laid down the key principle that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be established beyond doubt, touching from the dead body to the accused, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extra-judicial confession alone can form the basis of a criminal conviction without independent and reliable corroboration?
  • Is last-seen evidence considered the weakest type of evidence requiring strong independent corroboration?
  • What is the standard of proof required when a criminal case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitle the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Energy (Power Division), Islamabad and 4 others2023 LHC 5152 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-20Read full judgment →
• Manzar Abbas, Farhan Nazar vs District Police Officer, Sargodha, etc.2023 SCP 301, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 45, 2023 SCMR 2111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-06-15
  disciplinary proceedingsservice appealmisconductcriminal acquittaldue processpolice servicedepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a service appeal filed by two police officers challenging their dismissal from service following disciplinary proceedings. The core legal questions were whether an acquittal in a criminal case precludes departmental proceedings on the same charges, and whether the departmental inquiry against the petitioners was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court, by a majority, held that an acquittal in a criminal trial does not serve as an absolute bar against disciplinary proceedings, as departmental and criminal proceedings may proceed concurrently, and the result of one does not necessarily impinge upon the other. The Court affirmed that while an acquittal may be considered during disciplinary proceedings, it cannot be the sole determining factor. The majority found that the petitioners' unauthorized use of a private vehicle while in uniform and the subsequent abuse of their official position constituted gross misconduct, justifying their dismissal. The principle laid down is that disciplinary action for misconduct is independent of the outcome of criminal proceedings, provided the departmental inquiry is based on sufficient material and evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal in a criminal trial preclude departmental disciplinary proceedings on the same charges?
  • Can departmental and criminal proceedings proceed concurrently against a civil servant?
  • Is an acquittal in a criminal case the sole determining factor in deciding the outcome of disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Manthar Ali and another vs Registrar Sindh University Jamshoro and 102023 PLJ Karachi 26 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mansoor-Ul-Haque Solangi vs Pakistan Industrial Development2023 MLD 1556 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-28
  constitutional petitionejectmentdefault in utility chargespersonal needres-judicataconcurrent findingsfrivolous litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the concurrent findings of the lower rent courts which allowed the respondent's eviction application against the petitioner on the grounds of personal need and default in payment of utility charges. The core legal questions involved whether the second rent petition was barred by res-judicata and whether the petitioner committed default in payment of utility charges after a prior Supreme Court judgment. The High Court held that the subsequent rent petition was maintainable as it was based on a fresh cause of action and new grounds including personal need, and that the petitioner failed to rebut the landlord's unchallengeable evidence regarding default in utility charges and personal requirement. The court laid down that a prior judgment setting aside an earlier eviction does not grant a tenant a perpetual license to withhold rent and utility charges, and failure to rebut unrebutted evidence results in lawful concurrent findings of eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a subsequent rent eviction application is barred by res-judicata when filed on fresh grounds including personal need and subsequent defaults?
  • Does a tenant remain liable to pay rent and utility charges notwithstanding a prior Supreme Court judgment setting aside an earlier eviction order under different circumstances?
  • What is the legal effect of a tenant failing to offer themselves for cross-examination or lead evidence in rebuttal against the landlord's claims in rent proceedings?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and Appellate Court be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction in the absence of any illegality or jurisdictional defect?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansoor-ul-Haq Solangi vs Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation2023 SHC 291 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-28
  constitutional petitionejectmentdefault in rentpersonal needres-judicatautility charges
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court whereby the respondent's eviction petition against the petitioner was allowed on the grounds of personal need and default in payment of utility charges. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of successive eviction proceedings, the principle of res-judicata, and whether the petitioner committed default in rent and utility payments following a previous judgment of the Supreme Court. The Sindh High Court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below suffered from no jurisdictional defect or illegality, as the respondent successfully proved default in utility charges and personal need through un-rebutted evidence, whereas the petitioner failed to substantiate his claims of adjustment or discharge his burden of proof. The court laid down that a tenant cannot rely on pending claims or prior litigation to indefinitely withhold rent and utility charges, and that failure to challenge evidence or lead rebuttal leaves the landlord's case established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second rent case for eviction is barred by the principle of res-judicata when filed on fresh grounds and a subsequent cause of action?
  • Does a tenant's plea of pending adjustments from pensionary benefits absolve them from the statutory duty to pay monthly rent and utility charges?
  • What are the legal consequences when a tenant fails to cross-examine the landlord's witness or produce evidence in rebuttal during rent proceedings?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact rendered by the Rent Controller and Appellate Court be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction in the absence of any illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Khan vs The State2023 YLR 1305 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-14
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtinjured witnessocular accountmode and manner of occurrenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under sections 302(b), 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the naturalness of the presence of the complainant and injured witnesses at the crime scene and the reliability of the ocular account. The court held that the prosecution's narrative regarding the mode and manner of the occurrence was fraught with contradictions, improbable, and replete with doubts, as the alleged intervention of the witnesses to separate a fight between the accused and a third party lacked credibility. The key principle laid down is that while the presence of injuries on an injured witness establishes their presence at the scene, it does not automatically guarantee truthfulness, and any reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's version must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injuries on a witness automatically stamp them as a truthful witness?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution story is unnatural and fraught with contradictions?
  • Does failure to prove the actual mode and manner of the occurrence vitiate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Ahmed and others vs The State2023 YLR 1222 · Sindh High Court
  criminal appealmurderdeath sentenceinjured eye-witnessdelayed FIRocular evidenceirrigation water disputeappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Mansoor Ahmed, alongside the life imprisonment of co-appellants Aijaz Ahmed and Muhammad Munsha, for the murder of Pervaiz Ahmed and causing injuries to two others during a dispute over irrigation water. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's ocular evidence, the impact of a 24-hour delay in FIR registration, and whether minor contradictions in testimony warranted acquittal. The Sindh High Court upheld the convictions and confirmed the death sentence. The Court held that the testimony of injured eye-witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of weapons, was consistent, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring. It further ruled that the delay in lodging the FIR was reasonably explained by the priority given to seeking medical aid for the victims, and that minor discrepancies in evidence, typical of human recollection, do not undermine the prosecution's case when the core narrative remains consistent. The judgment reaffirms that named accused persons do not require an identification parade and that deterrent sentences are appropriate for brutal, unprovoked crimes.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in the registration of an FIR automatically render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Are minor contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses sufficient to warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Is an identification parade necessary for an accused person who is specifically named in the FIR with a defined role?
  • Can the testimony of injured eye-witnesses be considered sufficient to sustain a conviction in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansha Ali vs The State, etc2023 LHC 4873 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-04
  physical remandanti-terrorism courtpersonal libertycriminal revisioninvestigation progressjudicial discretionpolice custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Administrative Judge of the Anti-Terrorism Court, which granted a 14-day physical remand of the petitioner following an initial four-day remand period. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court exercised its discretion lawfully under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, when granting subsequent physical remand without sufficient justification or evidence of progress in the investigation. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the remand was granted mechanically without the investigating officer demonstrating that further evidence was likely to be recovered or that the investigation required continued police custody. The court emphasized that personal liberty, guaranteed under the Constitution, cannot be curtailed through mechanical remand orders. The key principle laid down is that under Section 21-E of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, a court must not grant further physical remand unless the investigating officer satisfies the court that further evidence is likely to be available and that no bodily harm will be caused to the accused, while also ensuring the court has applied its mind to the case diary and investigation progress.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant further physical remand of an accused without the investigating officer demonstrating that further evidence is likely to be available?
  • Does the addition of new offences during an investigation automatically justify an extension of physical remand?
  • Is a court required to apply its mind to the case diary and investigation progress before authorizing physical remand under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansha Ali vs The State & another2023 LHC 6054, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 837 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-24
  physical remandjudicial remandAnti-Terrorism Actcriminal revisioncustodial interrogationspeaking orderpolice diariesfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Administrative Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, granting further physical remand of the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the Administrative Judge is required to provide cogent, reasoned orders for physical remand under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and whether the general principles of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, apply to such proceedings. The Court held that the impugned remand order was invalid, as it was passed in a mechanical manner without judicial application of mind or evidence of investigative progress. The Court emphasized that physical remand is an exception, not the rule, and must be justified by a speaking order based on a thorough examination of police diaries. It further established that the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, does not exclude the application of general remand principles under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Court set aside the remand order, directing the petitioner to be lodged in judicial custody, and formulated comprehensive guidelines for Magistrates regarding the necessity, justification, and procedural requirements for granting physical remand.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Administrative Judge of an Anti-Terrorism Court required to provide cogent reasons when granting physical remand under Section 21-E of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Does the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, exclude the application of general principles of remand contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can a Magistrate grant an extension of physical remand if the investigation record shows no material progress since the previous remand period?
  • Is a remand order passed without the presence of the accused valid?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansab Ali, Ameen Bibi vs The State etc, Mansab Ali etc2023 LHC 3287, 2024 PCRLJ 617, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 746 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-06
  murderchance witnessmedical evidencemotivebenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalpost-mortem delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected revision petition for enhancement of sentence. The core legal questions involved the reliability of chance witnesses, contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, proof of motive, and the evidentiary value of recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the eyewitnesses were unverified chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful, their testimony contradicted the medical evidence regarding the nature and distance of injuries, the alleged motive remained unproved, and the recoveries were legally inconsequential. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant of the charge, set aside his conviction and sentence, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement. The key principles laid down include the strict requirement for independent corroboration of chance witnesses, the fatal impact of material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and the rule that an unproved motive and flawed recovery evidence cannot sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses who are closely related chance witnesses can be relied upon without independent and confidence-inspiring corroboration?
  • Does a major discrepancy between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the distance of firing and the nature of injuries create a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • What are the legal consequences when the prosecution sets up a specific motive but completely fails to prove it during the trial?
  • Can a recovery of a weapon be used to corroborate the prosecution's case if the attesting witness is a discredited eyewitness and the recovery is not from exclusive custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Mano vs The State2023 YLR 831 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-26
  criminal appealqatl-e-amdocular testimonyinterested witnessmedical corroborationrecovery of weaponbenefit of the doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal assails the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Umerkot, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment with compensation under Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular, medical, and circumstantial evidence, and whether the testimony of related and natural witnesses could form the basis of a conviction. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the ocular testimony of the eye-witnesses was consistent, confidence-inspiring, and fully corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the crime weapon. The court laid down the key principles that mere relationship of a witness to the deceased does not render them an 'interested' witness if their testimony is trustworthy, that minor discrepancies do not destroy the prosecution's case, and that a conviction in a murder case can even be sustained on the testimony of a single reliable witness.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and natural eye-witnesses can be relied upon to convict an accused in a murder case without independent corroboration?
  • Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report invariably create a doubt in the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be based upon the testimony of a single credible witness?
  • Whether mere relationship of a witness with the deceased is sufficient to declare them an interested witness.
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Zulfiqar Ahmad etc. vs Mosaddaq Parvaiz etc.2023 LHC 1319 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-21Read full judgment →
• Malik Zarin Khan vs Adnan Ali Malik and 2 others2023 CLC 1368 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-30Read full judgment →
• Malik Zaffar vs Rashid Hussain Shah and another2023 PSC (Crl.) 14 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-11-03
  benefit of doubtmedical and ocular contradictionswitness improvementsforensic science laboratory reportcriminal appealmurderappreciation of evidenceweapons of offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a common judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court involving a murder trial. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of glaring contradictions between ocular testimony and medical-forensic evidence, improvements made by witnesses, and discrepancies regarding the weapon of offence. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that material contradictions between the eye-witnesses and the FSL report (which established death by a .30-bore pistol rather than the alleged Kalashnikov), tainted recoveries, delayed inquest report particulars, and the failure of the prosecution to prove its case necessitated giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused. The court laid down the principle that material and dishonest improvements by eye-witnesses to match medical evidence make their testimony unreliable, and that even a single reasonable doubt arising from infirmities in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material improvements made by eye-witnesses to bring their testimony in line with medical evidence render their statements unreliable?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case when the bullet recovered from the deceased's body does not match the weapon attributed to the accused?
  • Does the failure to promptly dispatch crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory destroy the evidentiary value of such recoveries?
  • Whether the omission of crucial details such as the names of the accused and weapons in the relevant columns of the inquest report creates doubt regarding the promptness and veracity of the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Zaffar Ali Awan, DSP Crime Branch Muzaffarabad Azad Kashmir vs Azad Government of the State of the Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary Muzaffarabad and 8 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 844 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-05-30
  writ petitionpolice medalimplementation of prime minister orderfundamental rightsdepartmental inquirymandamus
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, seeking a direction for the implementation of an order passed by the Prime Minister on 30.10.2015 regarding the grant of the Quaid-e-Azam Police Medal to the petitioner, a police officer injured during official duty amidst a violent protest. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court could issue a writ of mandamus for the implementation of a final executive order conferring a state medal where the respondents failed to execute it despite the petitioner's established injury and meritorious service during duty hours. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the departmental refusal was mala fide and arbitrary, and that the Prime Minister's final order on the review application had attained finality. The court accepted the writ petition and directed the respondents to implement the Prime Minister's order within two months. The key principle laid down is that executive authorities cannot arbitrarily withhold or refuse to implement final, unchallenged administrative orders that confer justified state awards and incentives for performance of official duties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974 is maintainable for the implementation of an executive order passed by the Prime Minister?
  • Can executive authorities refuse to implement a final order regarding the grant of a police medal passed on a review application?
  • Whether an injury sustained by a police officer during official duty forms a valid basis for claiming a state police medal?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Waseem ur Rehman vs The Province of Punjab Deputy2023 LHC 1855 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-08Read full judgment →
• Malik Usama Bin Tahir Awan vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 517 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-01
  pre-arrest bailmala fide prosecutionbelated statementrash and negligent drivingQatl-i-amdulterior motives
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 seeks pre-arrest bail for the accused in a case registered under sections 279, 337-G, 427, 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether the prosecution's case of intentional murder (Qatl-i-amd) introduced via a belated statement is tainted with mala fide, and whether the accused is entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the belated conversion of a rash and negligent driving case into intentional murder, alongside contradictory statements and questionable medical grounds for delay, rendered the petitioner's involvement prima facie doubtful and pointed toward mala fide prosecution. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, laying down the principle that where an accused's involvement is doubtful and dismissal of pre-arrest bail would merely entitle them to post-arrest bail, sending them to prison is a futile exercise.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the prosecution's case is tainted with mala fide and belated improvements?
  • Is it a futile exercise to send an accused to prison if they would immediately become entitled to post-arrest bail upon surrender?
  • Does the right to fair trial and protection against arbitrary arrest under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 affect the threshold for granting pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Tariq Mahmood and others vs Province of Punjab and others2023 PLJ SC 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  land acquisitioncompensation enhancementmarket value determinationpotential valuecommercial landlocal commission reportfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the assessment of adequate compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The appellants' land had been categorized as agricultural/Ghair Mumkin Chapper and awarded minimal compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court. The High Court enhanced the rate to Rs. 20,000 per marla but rejected the claim that the land itself was commercial. The Supreme Court held that in determining market value under Section 23(1) of the Act, courts must evaluate potential future beneficial uses and surrounding local developments, rather than strictly relying on present use or revenue entries. Recognizing fundamental rights under Article 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the Court emphasized that local commission reports under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provide vital evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, declaring the land commercial based on its surroundings and enhancing compensation to Rs. 40,000 per marla pursuant to official rates and statutory caps under Section 25.

  Questions settled

  • How should the market value of acquired land be determined under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 when evaluating its potential non-agricultural use?
  • Can land be classified as commercial for compensation purposes based on surrounding developments even if not used commercially at the time of acquisition notification?
  • What weight and evidentiary status must courts attach to a local commissioner's report prepared pursuant to Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in land acquisition cases?
  • Does Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 prevent a court from awarding land acquisition compensation higher than the amount claimed by the landowner?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bushra vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2023 SHC 351 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-30Read full judgment →
• Malik Shah Jahan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Provincial Police Officer_IGP, Peshawar2023 PLC (C.S) 236 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-13
  service tribunalterms and conditions of servicedepartmental inquirycriminal acquittalconstitutional jurisdictionlachescivil servantpolice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Peshawar High Court addresses two consolidated constitutional petitions filed by police constables challenging their dismissal from service following unauthorized absence and subsequent departmental proceedings. The core legal questions revolved around whether criminal acquittal absolves a civil servant of departmental liability, whether the writ petitions were barred by laches, and whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 199 in view of the constitutional bar relating to terms and conditions of service. The court held that departmental proceedings and criminal trials are distinct; acquittal in a criminal case does not per se exonerate an employee from departmental disciplinary action. Furthermore, the petitions suffered from gross delay and laches, and more importantly, under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, exclusive jurisdiction regarding the terms and conditions of civil servants vests in the Service Tribunal, ousting the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does acquittal in a criminal case automatically absolve a civil servant from departmental disciplinary proceedings?
  • Whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 is barred in matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants by virtue of Article 212?
  • Can a writ petition challenging departmental dismissal be entertained when it suffers from unexplained delay and laches?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction regarding disciplinary matters of persons in the service of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Musawar Khan vs Mst. Nadia Yaseen Malik and others2023 PLD Islamabad 135 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-05Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Yaqoob etc. vs Government of The Punjab etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 519 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-03Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Yaqoob etc vs Government of the Punjab etc2023 LHC 1365 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-03Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Tahir vs State and anotherPLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-22
  post-arrest bailagreement to sellprohibitory clausefrauddishonoured chequefurther inquiryoverseas Pakistani
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 406, and 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, relating to an allegedly fraudulent agreement to sell agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that some of the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether his case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2). The Supreme Court held that the non-application of the prohibitory clause is not an absolute rule for granting bail and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Finding sufficient oral and documentary evidence connecting the petitioner to the deprivation of the overseas Pakistani complainant's wealth and noting the petitioner's subsequent refusal to return the owed money, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal. The key principle established is that exemption from the prohibitory clause is not absolute for the grant of bail, and courts must evaluate the specific facts and conduct of the accused, particularly when vulnerable overseas citizens are defrauded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rule that offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. entitle an accused to bail is absolute?
  • Does an unfulfilled promise to refund misappropriated amounts justify withholding post-arrest bail?
  • Whether a case involving allegations of fraud and deprivation of property of an overseas Pakistani warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Akram Kanhoon Versus vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 328 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-15Read full judgment →
• Malik Mohammad Rafiq and 2 others vs Public at Large and others2023 CLC 1916 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-11-08Read full judgment →
• Malik Mehboob vs Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others2023 PLD Lahore 97 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• Malik Manzoor Hussain vs Muhammad Khalid Zaman2023 IHC 374 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-27Read full judgment →
• Malik Khursheed vs Mst. Tehseen Bibi and 2 others2023 CLC 916 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-17Read full judgment →
• Malik Khan and others vs Member (Judicial-Vim, Board of Revenue, Punjab2023 MLD 448 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-08Read full judgment →
• Malik Israel vs Appellate Tribunal Mines & Minerals, Peshawar & others2023 PHC 257, 2024 PLD Peshawar 20 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-25Read full judgment →
• Malik Furqan Ahmed vs The State & Anohter2023 SHC 884 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-05
  criminal acquittal appealdishonest issuance of chequemens readouble presumption of innocencemisreading and non-reading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal arises from a judgment passed by the Court of Civil and Judicial Magistrate, Karachi West, acquitting the private respondent under Section 245(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case concerning the dishonoring of a cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the essential element of dishonest intention, or mens rea, required to attract Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondent warranted interference. The Sindh High Court held that mere issuance of a cheque and its subsequent dishonor do not suffice to attract Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without establishing the basic element of dishonesty. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove mens rea and that the trial court's judgment was well-reasoned and free from perversity, misreading, or non-reading of evidence. The appellate court laid down the principle that an order of acquittal carries double presumption of innocence and will not be interfered with unless found to be capricious, arbitrary, or perverse.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere issuance of a cheque and its subsequent dishonour automatically attract the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of dishonest intention?
  • What are the grounds required for an appellate court to interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Whether the burden of proof in a criminal trial rests upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Falaksher through LRs vs Muhammad Baran and another2023 PHC 494, 2024 YLR 2578 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-18Read full judgment →
• Malik Dad Superintendent and others vs Ministry of Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 469 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-02
  Secretariat AllowanceCivil ServantsArticle 25DiscriminationAttached DepartmentsWrit PetitionService Matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by employees of the Central Board of Film Censors, an attached department of the Federal Government, seeking the grant of a 20% Secretariat Allowance. The petitioners contended that they were being discriminated against in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, as other Federal Government employees had received this benefit. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the allowance based on the principle of equality and whether the Secretariat Allowance (Recession of Orders, etc.) Ordinance 2000 barred such claims. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that their duties were identical to those of the employees who had received the allowance, a prerequisite for invoking the principle of non-discrimination. Furthermore, the Court held that the Secretariat Allowance (Recession of Orders, etc.) Ordinance 2000 effectively rescinded the allowance with effect from July 1, 1988, rendering the claim legally redundant. The Court affirmed that Article 25 only requires equal treatment for those similarly placed, not identical treatment for dissimilar roles.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 mandate identical treatment for all government employees regardless of the nature of their duties?
  • Are employees of attached departments entitled to the Secretariat Allowance if they do not perform Secretariat functions?
  • What is the legal effect of the Secretariat Allowance (Recession of Orders, etc.) Ordinance 2000 on claims for the Secretariat Allowance?
  • Can a claim of discrimination under Article 25 be sustained without proving that the petitioners and their counterparts perform identical duties?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Azmat Ullah vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 10 others2023 PCRLJ 290 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-08
  protective bailtransitory bailproclaimed offenderaccess to justicefair trialdue process of lawsurrender before courtconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 by a proclaimed offender residing abroad who was nominated in a murder case under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought protective/transitory bail to return to Pakistan and surrender before the competent court without being arrested at the airport. The primary legal question was whether a fugitive from law or proclaimed offender located abroad is entitled to protective bail under the constitutional guarantees of access to justice, fair trial, and due process. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, granting protective bail for a fixed period subject to furnishing sureties. The Court held that access to justice and fair trial under Articles 4, 9, 10A, and 14 of the Constitution are inviolable fundamental rights. It ruled that protective bail is not pre-arrest bail on the merits, but a limited, time-bound restraint order enabling an accused to surrender before the competent forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court grant protective or transitory bail under Article 199 of the Constitution to an accused person who is abroad and declared a proclaimed offender?
  • Does being a fugitive from law or a proclaimed offender entirely bar an accused from seeking a time-bound restraint order to surrender before a competent court?
  • What is the legal nature and distinction between protective bail and pre-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the right of access to justice an inviolable constitutional right enforceable through protective bail under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Mal Pakistan Ltd., Muhammad Kashif, Muhammad Imran, M/s Zahid2023 SHC 321 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Makhdoomzadi Gauhar Bano Qureshi vs Province of Punjab through Chief2023 PCRLJ 1646 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-06
  preventive detentionconstitutional jurisdictionalternate remedypublic ordernon-speaking orderjudicial reviewdetention order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a detention order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi, under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, against Shah Mehmood Qureshi. The core legal question was whether the detention order was legally sustainable given the lack of incriminating material and whether the existence of an alternate remedy under Section 3(6) of the Ordinance barred the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court held that the detention order was perverse and non-speaking, as it failed to provide reasonable grounds or supporting evidence for the apprehension of public disorder. Furthermore, the Court determined that the availability of an alternate remedy does not oust the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction when an order is passed without legal reasoning or authority. The key principle laid down is that preventive detention requires the detaining authority to establish reasonable grounds through concrete material, and an order lacking such justification is invalid and subject to judicial review despite the existence of statutory alternate remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of an alternate remedy under Section 3(6) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 bar the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is a detention order passed under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 valid if it lacks incriminating material or reasonable grounds?
  • Does a detention order that fails to provide legal reasoning violate Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act 1897?
  Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi vs The State & Another2023 IHC 168 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-23
  jail trialopen courtjoint trialadministrative errordignity of accusedofficial secrets actcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the trial court's order dated 09.10.2023, which directed his trial to be conducted in jail alongside his co-accused. The petitioner contended that his name was omitted from the initial jail trial notification, and that he was entitled to an open court trial under Section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court observed that the omission of the petitioner's name in the initial notification was an administrative error subsequently rectified by an amended notification. The Court held that because the petitioner was being jointly tried with a co-accused who faced severe security threats, a joint trial in jail was necessary under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, under Section 531 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, proceedings cannot be set aside merely for being held at a wrong place unless a failure of justice is demonstrated. The Court affirmed that a jail trial is not akin to an in-camera trial and must remain open to the public and media to the maximum extent possible, while ensuring the dignity of the accused is preserved.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of an accused's name from an initial jail trial notification vitiate the trial proceedings if the omission is subsequently rectified by an amended notification?
  • Can a trial be conducted in jail for joint accused persons under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if security concerns exist for one of the co-accused?
  • Whether a jail trial is legally equivalent to an in-camera trial, or must it satisfy the requirements of an open and fair trial?
  • Does conducting a trial at an incorrect venue or jail premises invalidate the proceedings in the absence of a proven failure of justice under Section 531 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Make It 16 Incorporated vs Attorney-General2023 SCMR 426 · Supreme Court of New Zealand · 2022-11-21Read full judgment →
• Majid Hussain Shah vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu And Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and 3 others2023 PLJ AJ&K 55 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Maj (R) Shahzad Saleem vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2023 IHC 170 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-17
  Public Accounts Committeeparliamentary privilegejurisdiction of PACwrit of certioraritrichotomy of powersjudicial reviewinternal proceedings of Parliament
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses several interconnected writ petitions filed against notices and directions issued by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to officials of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Pakistan Science Foundation, and NADRA Technologies Limited. The core legal questions involved the scope of the PAC's jurisdiction, the justiciability of parliamentary proceedings under Article 69 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether the PAC can entertain private complaints or interfere in service matters. The court held that parliamentary privilege and immunity under Article 69 are restricted to procedural irregularities and do not provide blanket immunity against excess of jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi is that the PAC's functions are strictly confined to examining government accounts, appropriations, and public expenditures as prescribed by the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly 2007; it has no legal authority to summon officials based on private complaints such as allegations of sexual harassment, nor to interfere in the executive or service matters of autonomous bodies. The petitions were consequently allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the immunity and privilege of parliamentary proceedings under Article 69 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is absolute or restricted?
  • Does the Public Accounts Committee have the legal authority to entertain private complaints or inquire into allegations of sexual harassment against government officials?
  • Can the superior courts judicially review actions of parliamentary committees that exceed their constitutionally and statutorily prescribed limits?
  • Whether the Public Accounts Committee can interfere in the executive and service matters of autonomous or statutory bodies?
  Read full judgment →
• Mairajuddin vs The State2023 PCRLJ 282 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-29
  post-arrest bailnarcotic drugspsychotropic substancesfurther inquirypharmaceutical productsexport policy violationcriminal bail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Mairajuddin, who was charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 240 kilograms of medicated tablets, including Zanax and Diazepam, concealed within a container declared as tiles. The core legal question was whether the recovered substances, manufactured by licensed pharmaceutical companies, constituted narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances under the Act, or if the incident merely involved a violation of export policies. The Court observed that the substances were manufactured under license and that the classification of these items as narcotics or psychotropic substances remained a matter for trial determination. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant’s guilt required further inquiry. The principle laid down is that where the nature of the recovered substances is ambiguous and potentially falls under regulatory export violations rather than the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the case warrants further inquiry, entitling the accused to the concession of post-arrest bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of licensed pharmaceutical products concealed in a shipment automatically constitute an offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • When does a case involving the recovery of medicated tablets require further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the classification of recovered substances as narcotics or psychotropic substances is disputed and requires trial determination?
  Read full judgment →
• Main Qaiser Shah vs M/s Khyber Grace Private (Ltd) and others2023 PHC 450, 2024 MLD 1399 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mahnoor Shabbir vs Additional District Judge, etc2023 LHC 6415, 2024 CLC 513, 2024 PLJ Lahore 135 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-12Read full judgment →
• Mahmoodi Begum and others vs Mohammad Eisa and others2023 MLD 739 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-09Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Textile Mills Limited through Technical Director Power of the Company vs Sui-Northern Gas Pipelines, SNGPL through Managing Director, Lahore and 5 others2023 PLD Lahore 139 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-06Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Khan and 3 others vs Bashir Ahmed and another2023 YLR 176 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-31Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Andha vs VIIth Rent Controller Karachi, South and another2023 MLD 380 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mafaiza Begum vs Ghazwana Perveen and others2023 YLR 1961 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-09Read full judgment →
• Madrissa-Tul-Madina vs Lahore Development Authority, etc2023 LHC 6496 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-08Read full judgment →
• Madni Ahmed Ali Arfat Siddiqui vs Sui Southern Gas Company Limited2023 PLJ Karachi 19 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Madiha Ammad vs The State through Prosecutor General Punjab and 92023 PCRLJ 372 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-15
  cancellation reportfirst information reportprocedural fairnessright to fair trialchange of investigationpolice rulesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order of the Judicial Magistrate concurring with a police cancellation report and cancelling an FIR registered under Section 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether the Superintendent of Police must mandatorily countersign a cancellation report under the Police Rules, 1934, and whether a complainant has a right to be heard by the Magistrate prior to the cancellation of an FIR in light of the constitutional rights to fair trial and due process under Articles 4 and 10A. The Lahore High Court held that Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules requiring the Superintendent of Police to submit or countersign the cancellation report is mandatory, and that under Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution, the complainant of an FIR is entitled to procedural fairness and a right of hearing before a Magistrate decides on a cancellation report. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the power to cancel a first information report is inherent in section 173 read with section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the requirement under Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules 1934 for the Superintendent of Police to submit or countersign a cancellation report mandatory?
  • Does a complainant have a fundamental right to be informed and heard by a Magistrate when considering a police cancellation report under Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a Magistrate act as a criminal court when concurring with a cancellation report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Madeeha Munir vs Government of the Punjab and 06 Others2023 LHC 2359, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 68 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-06
  locus poenitentiaeeducator recruitmentsoftware errormerit listintra court appealcontractual employmentconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves multiple intra-court appeals and a constitutional petition arising from a recruitment process for educators initiated by the Government of the Punjab under the Recruitment Policy 2016/2017. The core legal question concerned whether the principle of locus poenitentiae could protect appointment contracts erroneously issued to candidates lower in merit due to software errors in the recruitment process, preventing their withdrawal in favor of more deserving candidates higher in merit. The Lahore High Court held that the principle of locus poenitentiae does not apply to protect benefits or appointments erroneously extended on the basis of a software mistake or illegality, particularly to the detriment of more meritorious candidates. The court established that an illegal or erroneous order does not create perpetual rights, and rectification of merit is permissible when a mistake is discovered, provided there is no evidence of malice, favoritism, or political interference.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to protect appointment contracts granted erroneously due to a software error in a recruitment process?
  • Can a government department rectify a merit list and withdraw appointments made on the basis of erroneous software calculations?
  • Whether constitutional interference is warranted in public employment selections in the absence of established malafide, political interference, or departure from merit?
  Read full judgment →
• M.F.M.Y Industries Limited, M/s. Sapphire Textile Mills Ltd. M/s. Gatron2023 SHC 156, 2023 MLD 1149 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M. Sarwar Sons, Hafizabad vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Gujranwala2023 PTD (Trib.) 167 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-04-05Read full judgment →