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.

• Kauser Parveen and another vs Kasb Bank and others2023 CLD 589 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-22
  Banking Court auctionexecution of decreeproprietary rightsauction purchaserFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001sale certificateco-ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order dismissing the appellants' challenge to a Banking Court's auction of a mortgaged property. The appellants, claiming to be co-owners of the property, argued that they were not judgment-debtors and that the auction was procedurally flawed, specifically regarding the timing of payment by the auction purchaser. The Supreme Court addressed whether the appellants could be deprived of proprietary rights through such an auction and whether the auction was vitiated by procedural irregularities. The Court held that the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, provides a special summary procedure, meaning the Banking Court is not strictly bound by the procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in execution proceedings. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that once an auction sale is confirmed and a sale certificate is issued, the rights of the auction purchaser are vested and protected, particularly when the appellants failed to timely challenge the proceedings or prove fraud under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Banking Court is strictly bound by the procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 during execution proceedings?
  • Can an auction sale of a mortgaged property be set aside after the sale certificate has been issued and the sale has become absolute?
  • Does a person challenging a judgment or decree on the grounds of fraud or misrepresentation have to seek remedy under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashmaloo vs The State2023 PHC 106, 2024 PCRLJ 174 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-04
  narcotic substanceschain of custodycriminal appealsafe custody of contrabandcross-examinationforensic science laboratorypossession of narcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 9(d) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, for the possession of 24,280 grams of Charas. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody of the recovered contraband, whether the transmission of samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory was timely, and whether minor discrepancies in witness testimony warranted acquittal. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that the prosecution established the safe custody and timely transmission of the contraband. Key principles laid down include: (1) a failure to cross-examine a witness on a material point constitutes an admission of that fact; (2) minor discrepancies in witness testimony that do not affect the core prosecution case do not justify acquittal; (3) the 72-hour rule for dispatching samples to the laboratory under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 is directory rather than mandatory; and (4) procedural inefficiencies by investigating officers do not invalidate a conviction where guilt is otherwise proven by confidence-inspiring evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to cross-examine a witness on a material point constitute an admission of that fact?
  • Is the 72-hour time limit for dispatching narcotic samples to the laboratory under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 mandatory or directory?
  • Can procedural inefficiencies by an investigating officer serve as a sole ground for acquittal when guilt is otherwise proven?
  • Do minor discrepancies in witness testimony regarding timings and police personnel numbers warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashmali Khan & others vs Mst. Malala2023 SCP 152, 2023 PLJ SC 520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-18
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadstrictissimi jurisplaint requirementsagency in pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987. While the lower courts concurrently found in favour of the plaintiffs regarding the initial demand of Talb-i-Muwathibat, the High Court reversed the decree. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court concerned whether the formal requirements of Talb-i-Ishhad—specifically the disclosure of witnesses' names in the plaint, confirmation of the intention to exercise the right of pre-emption in the notice, and the validity of a notice sent through an agent without proof of personal disability or express authorization—were duly fulfilled. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the right of pre-emption is strictissimi juris and any slight departure from mandatory statutory formalities is fatal. The Court established that omission to name witnesses of Talb-i-Ishhad in the plaint, failure to expressly confirm the intention to pre-empt in the notice, and unauthorized agency without proving personal disability defeat the pre-emption claim.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission to mention the names of the witnesses of Talb-i-Ishhad in the plaint is fatal to a pre-emption suit?
  • Is a notice of Talb-i-Ishhad valid if it fails to expressly confirm the pre-emptor's intention to exercise the right of pre-emption?
  • Can a pre-emptor make Talb-i-Ishhad through an agent without proving personal disability and prior explicit authorization?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Zaman vs Federation of Pakistan and another2023 IHC 212 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-17Read full judgment →
• Kashif Nawaz, etc vs State, etc2023 LHC 6660, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 813 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-19
  refusal to sign charge sheetSection 180 PPCcontempt of courtSection 480 CrPCSection 482 CrPCsummary convictionmaintainability of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellants under Section 180 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (PPC) and sentencing them to fifteen days' simple imprisonment with a fine for refusing to sign a charge sheet. The core legal questions were whether an accused person is legally required to sign a charge sheet, whether a court can directly pass a sentence of imprisonment under Section 180 PPC, and whether an appeal against such an order is maintainable. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. The Court held that while obtaining signatures on a charge sheet is common practice, it is not a statutory legal requirement, and refusal to sign does not constitute an offence under Section 180 PPC. Furthermore, under Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Cr.P.C.), a court taking summary cognizance of contempt in its presence can only impose a fine up to two hundred rupees; to impose imprisonment, it must forward the case to a Magistrate under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court also affirmed that an appeal against a summary conviction under Section 480 Cr.P.C. is competent under Section 486 Cr.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused person legally required to sign a charge sheet under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a court directly sentence an accused to imprisonment under Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for an offence under Section 180 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What procedure must a court follow under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if it considers that a sentence of imprisonment is warranted for contempt committed in its presence?
  • Is an appeal maintainable under Section 486 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against a summary conviction passed under Section 480 of the Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Mehmood vs Election Commission of Pakistan & 02 others2023 LHC 2145 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-13Read full judgment →
• Kashif Ali vs The State2023 YLR 1153 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-12-19
  criminal revisionprohibition enforcement of haddrecovery proceedingssafe custody of case propertychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtsection 103 CrPCacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Revision Petition challenged the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Article 4 of The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the alleged possession of wine. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the integrity of the recovery proceedings and the chemical analysis of the seized contraband. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the case property, noting significant delays in sending the sample for analysis and the failure to examine the officials responsible for its custody. Furthermore, the Court found that the failure to associate independent witnesses as required by law, coupled with material contradictions in the testimonies of police witnesses and the omission to put the chemical examiner's report to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. The Court laid down the principle that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, and that non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, such as Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, vitiates the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a recovery violate the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained if the prosecution fails to prove the safe custody and transmission of the case property to the chemical examiner?
  • Is a chemical examiner's report admissible as evidence against an accused if it was not put to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of enmity between the police and the accused automatically validate the prosecution's evidence despite material contradictions?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Aftab Ahmed Abbasi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2023 PLJ SC 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  antedated seniorityPolice Service of PakistanCommon Training Programprobationer seniorityservice lawdefermentinter-se seniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal arose from a Federal Service Tribunal decision dismissing the petitioner's claim for antedated seniority. The petitioner, inducted into the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP) on an Armed Forces quota, was granted successive deferments from his mandatory Common Training Program (CTP) while serving as Aide-de-Camp to the Governor Sindh. Upon completing training with the 43rd CTP, his inter-se seniority was fixed with that batch, but he claimed antedated seniority with the 35th CTP from his initial appointment date without having passed the training exam. The Supreme Court evaluated whether a probationer deferred from training could claim seniority from the original appointment date without qualifying the mandatory examinations under the applicable rules. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that seniority for probationers is determined after passing the final examination under Rule 7 of the Occupational Groups and Services (Probation, Training and Seniority) Rules, 1990. The Court ruled that no civil servant possesses a vested right to antedated seniority or a specific rank placement prior to completing mandatory training requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested or fundamental right to claim antedated seniority prior to passing required training examinations?
  • How is inter-se seniority of probationers determined when mandatory Common Training Program deferments are granted?
  • Can a probationer claim seniority with an earlier training batch without qualifying the requisite final passing-out examination with that batch?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashf Foundation through Chief Executive vs Chief Commissioner Inland2024 PTD 808, 2023 LHC 7605 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-17Read full judgment →
• Kasb Securities Limited vs Head of Department (MSRD)2023 CLD 1466 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2023-07-27Read full judgment →
• Kareemdad and Hussain Bux Brohi vs The State2023 SHC 459 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-26
  perjurylocus poenitentiaeframing of chargeSection 193 PPCSection 195 CrPCcontradictory statementscross examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of twelve months' rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellants by the trial court under Section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for perjury. The appellants, who were victims in a kidnapping case that had been pending for ten years, had resiled from their examination-in-chief during cross-examination, stating they could not identify the accused because the perpetrators' faces were muffled—thereby aligning with their initial FIR version. The trial court convicted them upon an application by the prosecutor without framing a formal charge. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that failure to frame a charge in a trial for perjury is an incurable illegality not saved by Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, proceedings initiated without a written complaint by the court itself violate Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down that witnesses have a locus poenitentiae to correct themselves in judicial proceedings without automatically being liable for perjury, and a successful challenge to credibility does not per se demonstrate intentional false evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to frame a formal charge in a trial for perjury under Section 193 PPC is remediable under Section 537 CrPC?
  • Whether a court can initiate perjury proceedings under Section 193 PPC without a written complaint filed by the court itself under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC?
  • Whether a witness who corrects a contradictory statement during cross-examination retains a locus poenitentiae against prosecution for perjury?
  Read full judgment →
• Kareem Nawaz and 4 others vs District Collector/Deputy Commissioner2023 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-12
  land acquisitionsection 4 notificationurgency powersfeasibility reportfundamental rightsright to propertyjudicial reviewabdication of discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the acquisition of land by the District Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the extension of infrastructure at PAF Base, Multan, and the subsequent issuance of a notification under sections 17(4) and 6 by the Commissioner. The core legal questions involved the legality of the initial section 4 notification without complying with mandatory feasibility rules, the abdication of statutory discretion by public authorities through external drafting and dictation, and the proper interpretation and exercise of urgency powers under section 17. The Lahore High Court held that the District Collector failed to conduct the mandatory objective feasibility examination under the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, and abdicated his powers by merely endorsing a pre-drafted notification. The Court further held that the Commissioner's issuance of the urgency notification under section 17(4) after a prolonged delay negated any genuine urgency, suffered from dictated exercise of power, and lacked the requisite objective formation of opinion. Consequently, both notifications were declared void ab initio and without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that compulsory acquisition is a severe invasion of fundamental property rights, requiring strict adherence to procedural safeguards, objective feasibility assessments by collectors, and independent, reasoned formation of opinion by commissioners in cases of urgency.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the District Collector to conduct an objective feasibility study and examine alternate land uses renders a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 void?
  • Can a public authority abdicate its statutory discretion by adopting and issuing a draft notification prepared by external agencies or military authorities?
  • Whether the Commissioner is legally required to form an independent, objective opinion in writing based on material evidence before invoking the special urgency powers and dispensing with sections 5 and 5-A under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Does an inordinate delay in issuing a declaration under section 17(4) and section 6 negate the existence of urgency required for bypassing normal land acquisition procedures?
  Read full judgment →
• Karam Hussain Shakoor and Another vs Mst. Aneela Shaharyar Mughal2023 SHC 586 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-19Read full judgment →
• Karam Ceramics Ltd & others vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2023 SHC 80 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-18Read full judgment →
• Karachi Municipal Corporation vs Presiding Officer, IX Ad&SJ, East, Karachi2023 SHC 1060, 2024 PLD Sindh 339 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-28Read full judgment →
• Kanwar Arif Ali Khan and another vs Danish Ali and others2023 SCMR 233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-01
  leave to appeallocus standinon-partyprocedural lawjudicial governanceSupreme Court practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the procedural requirements for filing an appeal or petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by a person who was not a party to the original proceedings before the High Court. The core legal question addressed is whether a non-party can directly challenge a High Court judgment without first seeking leave of the Supreme Court. Relying on the precedent established in H.M. Saya & Co. v. Wazir Ali Industries Ltd. (PLD 1969 SC 65), the Court held that a person not party to the original proceedings must first file a separate application seeking leave to appeal or petition. The Court affirmed that this practice ensures the Court is notified of the petitioner's status and allows the petitioner to establish their grievance before the merits are heard. This procedure is deemed consistent with the spirit of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, promoting transparency and judicial governance. Consequently, the Court directed the office to de-number the instant petition and required the petitioner to file the necessary application for leave to appeal before the matter could proceed on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person who was not a party to the proceedings before the High Court directly file an appeal or petition before the Supreme Court?
  • What is the procedural requirement for a non-party to challenge a High Court judgment before the Supreme Court?
  • Does the Supreme Court require a separate application for leave to appeal from a non-party petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Kaniz Fatima vs Tamiz ul Haque & another2023 IHC 392, 2024 YLR 890 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
• Kamran Saeed vs Additional District Judge etc.2023 LHC 4682, 2023 PLJ Lahore 912 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-13Read full judgment →
• Kamran Khan vs Govt. of Punjab, etc.2023 LHC 2759, 2023 PLJ Lahore 834 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-25Read full judgment →
• Kamila Aamir and another vs Additional District & Session Judge and others2023 LHC 3572, 2023 PLD Lahore 601, 2023 PLJ Lahore 735 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-19
  Order II Rule 2rejection of plaintclaim splittingmultiplicity of litigationcause of actioninheritance disputecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged an appellate order rejecting their plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing the bar under Order II Rule 2. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could institute a second suit for inheritance claims and cancellation of documents while a prior suit concerning the same estate was pending, and whether a final decision in the first suit is a prerequisite for invoking the bar of Order II Rule 2. The Lahore High Court held that the second suit was barred, as the petitioners had split their claims and reliefs arising from the same cause of action—the denial of inheritance rights—across two separate proceedings. The Court affirmed that Order II Rule 2 is designed to prevent multiplicity of litigation and vexatious suits, and its application does not require a final judgment in the prior suit. Furthermore, the Court established that while rejection of a plaint generally relies on the plaint's contents, a court may consider admitted facts outside the plaint to determine if a suit is barred by law, thereby avoiding unnecessary proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require a final judgment in the first suit to be applicable?
  • Can a court consider facts outside the plaint when deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the omission of a claim or relief in a prior suit regarding the same cause of action bar a subsequent suit under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Kalu Khan & others vs Mst. Rafiq-un-Nisa & others2023 PHC 344 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-30Read full judgment →
• Kaleemullah S/O Hazar Khan vs The State2023 SHC 134 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-26
  post-arrest bailabductionfurther inquirySection 164 statementNikkahage of consentcriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Kaleemullah, who is charged under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged abduction of a female. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the alleged abduction and the subsequent statement of the abductee. The Court observed that in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the abductee did not allege zina-bil-jabr or forced abduction, but rather indicated she accompanied the applicant voluntarily and entered into a Nikkah. Furthermore, medical evidence suggested the abductee was approximately 16-17 years old, rendering the issue of her capacity to consent a matter of further inquiry. The Court held that the applicant made out a prima facie case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to provide legally admissible evidence connecting the accused to the crime, and the case requires further investigation, the accused is entitled to bail, as unjustified incarceration cannot be compensated if the accused is ultimately acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of allegations of zina-bil-jabr in a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute grounds for further inquiry in an abduction case?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution lacks legally admissible evidence to connect them to the alleged offense?
  • Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of being nominated in an FIR for a heinous crime if the case otherwise warrants further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Kabeer Akbar vs State etc.PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 446, 2023 PCRLJ 1588 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-08
  pre-arrest bailcorporate criminal liabilitydishonestly issuing a chequeseparate legal entityidentification doctrinemens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a pre-arrest bail application in a criminal case involving the dishonour of a cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal questions examined by the Lahore High Court are whether criminal liability under Section 489-F is attributable to a corporation, and whether the individual signing the cheque on behalf of the company bears criminal liability. The court held that corporations can be prosecuted under Section 489-F as the term 'whoever' encompasses both natural and juristic persons, and that the criminal liability of the signatory depends on their role, position, and authority as the directing mind of the company. The court laid down principles regarding corporate criminal liability, the identification doctrine, and the separate legal entity of corporations. Finding that the dispute involved contractual breaches and prima facie malice, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Is criminal liability under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 attributable to a company?
  • Does the person who signs a cheque on behalf of a company bear criminal liability under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • How does the identification doctrine apply to determine the criminal intent of a corporation?
  Read full judgment →
• Kabeer Ahmed Khan through his LRs vs Qadeer Khan through his LRs & Ors2023 SHC 974 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-10Read full judgment →
• K-Electric Limited through its Chief Executive Officer, Karachi and Others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad and others2023 SCP 106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-19
  electricity tariffNEPRAsubsidyvested rightSchedule of TariffK-Electrictariff determinationregulatory authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a dispute over electricity tariff subsidies for K-Electric consumers. The Federal Government modified the Industrial Support Package (ISP) via SRO 810(I)/2019, subsequently issuing a Corrigendum to adjust the Schedule of Tariff (SOT) without National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) approval. Consumers challenged the Corrigendum, arguing that the subsidy was a vested right and that only NEPRA could adjust tariffs. The Supreme Court held that while the Federal Government possesses the authority to introduce, modify, or withdraw subsidies as a matter of socio-economic policy, it cannot unilaterally issue or adjust an SOT. Tariff determination and adjustments are exclusively within NEPRA’s domain under the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997. The Court affirmed that consumers hold no vested right to a subsidy, which remains subject to government policy. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s attempt to calculate specific tariff adjustments, directing that the matter be referred to NEPRA for proper determination and issuance of an amended SOT in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Government unilaterally issue or adjust a Schedule of Tariff without the involvement of the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority?
  • Do consumers possess a vested right to an electricity subsidy once it has been incorporated into the tariff?
  • Does the authority to determine and adjust electricity tariffs exclusively reside with the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority?
  • Is the Federal Government empowered to modify or withdraw electricity subsidies as a matter of policy?
  Read full judgment →
• K-Electric Limited through Chief Executive Officer, Karachi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others2023 PLD Supreme Court 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-19
  electricity tariffNEPRAsubsidyindustrial support packagetariff determinationK-Electricuniform tariffregulatory authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the legality of a Corrigendum issued by the Federal Government, which modified the Industrial Support Package (ISP) subsidy for K-Electric consumers without National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) approval. The core legal questions involved the Federal Government's authority to unilaterally adjust electricity tariffs and issue a Schedule of Tariff (SOT), and whether electricity consumers possess a vested right in government-provided subsidies. The Supreme Court held that tariff determination, including adjustments for subsidies, falls exclusively within the domain of NEPRA under the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997. The Court ruled that while the Federal Government may set socio-economic policies and offer subsidies, it cannot unilaterally determine or adjust tariffs or issue an SOT. Furthermore, the Court clarified that consumers have no vested right in a subsidy, which remains subject to government policy modifications. Consequently, the High Court’s attempt to calculate tariff adjustments was set aside, and the matter was remanded to NEPRA to compute the necessary adjustments to the uniform tariff in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Government have the authority to unilaterally determine or adjust electricity tariffs and issue a Schedule of Tariff without NEPRA's involvement?
  • Do electricity consumers possess a vested right in a government-provided subsidy once it is incorporated into the tariff?
  • Is the calculation and adjustment of electricity tariffs a matter that falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of NEPRA?
  • Can the Federal Government modify or withdraw electricity subsidies through policy decisions without NEPRA's prior determination?
  Read full judgment →
• K-Electric Limited through Chief Executive Officer, Karachi and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad and others2023 PLJ SC 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  electricity tariffsubsidyNEPRAK-ElectricIndustrial Support Packageschedule of tariffvested righttariff adjustment
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses appeals arising from a dispute over the modification of an Industrial Support Package (ISP) subsidy for electricity consumers of K-Electric. The core legal question concerned the authority of the Federal Government to issue a corrigendum and schedule of tariff adjusting the subsidy without recourse to the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA), and whether consumers have a vested right in government-provided subsidies. The Court held that while the Federal Government possesses the sole competence to introduce, modify, or withdraw subsidies as part of its socio-economic policy, the determination, adjustment, and issuance of the Schedule of Tariff (SOT) strictly fall within the exclusive domain of NEPRA under the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997. The High Court's exercise in calculating and restructuring the tariff was set aside as an oversimplification of a complex regulatory process. The key principle laid down is that electricity subsidies do not merge into the tariff to create a vested right for consumers, and any adjustments or SOT issuances necessitated by a change in subsidy must be computed and determined exclusively by NEPRA.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Government have the authority to determine or adjust electricity tariffs and issue a Schedule of Tariff without recourse to NEPRA?
  • Do consumers acquire a vested right in an electricity subsidy simply because the subsidy is built into the notified tariff?
  • Can the High Court calculate and fix electricity tariffs for peak and off-peak hours in place of NEPRA's statutory determination mechanism?
  • Does the adjustment of a government-offered electricity subsidy amount to an illegal retrospective application of a tariff?
  Read full judgment →
• Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others vs President of Pakistan and others2023 PLD Supreme Court 661 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-04
  live streaming court proceedingsaccess to informationArticle 19Areview jurisdictionmaintainability of miscellaneous applicationinherent powers of Supreme Courtopen court principlefreedom of speech
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil miscellaneous application was filed by a petitioner in review jurisdiction seeking directions for the state-owned television network (PTV) and private channels to broadcast live, and for live streaming of, the court proceedings of his review petition. The Additional Attorney General raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, arguing that review jurisdiction under Article 188 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is restricted to correcting material errors and cannot entertain new prayers seeking enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 19A. The majority of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (6:4) sustained the preliminary objection and dismissed the application as incompetent in review jurisdiction. The majority held that while public access to information in matters of public importance under Article 19A is a recognized fundamental right, matters regarding technological infrastructure, live-streaming modalities, and procedural rules fall under the purview of administrative decision-making by the Full Court under Article 191, rather than being determined via an ancillary application in review jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a miscellaneous application seeking enforcement of new fundamental rights be entertained under the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
  • Does Article 19A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 guarantee a fundamental right of public access to live streaming of court proceedings in matters of public importance?
  • Whether the decision to broadcast or live stream judicial proceedings is a matter to be regulated by the Full Court on the administrative side under Article 191 of the Constitution?
  • Can inherent powers under Order XXXIII Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 be invoked to bypass procedural limitations governing review jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Junaid Wazir vs Superintendent of Police, PRU/Dolphin Police, Lahore2023 SCP 355, 2024 SCMR 181, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-10-05
  discharge from servicepolice rulesdepartmental representationlimitation periodservice tribunalpith and substancenatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner-constable's service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner was proceeded against under the Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975 for absence from duty and was discharged from service under Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules, 1934. His departmental appeal was rejected as non-maintainable because Rule 12.21 bars an appeal against discharge. The core legal question was whether a departmental remedy or appeal could be pursued against an order of discharge under Rule 12.21, and how limitation applies before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that even if an appeal is not provided under Rule 12.21, a civil servant is entitled under Section 21(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 to file a representation to the next higher authority, which authorities must examine on merits rather than dismissing it on hyper-technical grounds of nomenclature. The Court established that public functionaries and tribunals must look at the pith and substance of a remedy rather than its title, and procedural hurdles should not defeat substantive rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a departmental appeal or representation is maintainable against an order of discharge passed under Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules, 1934?
  • Does the absence of an express provision for appeal in service rules bar a civil servant from filing a representation under Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • Can a departmental authority reject a remedy solely on the basis of incorrect nomenclature without examining the pith and substance of the grievance?
  • When does time begin to run for filing an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal in cases where a departmental representation is pursued?
  Read full judgment →
• Junaid Qamar vs Sessions Judge, West Islamabad and 2 others2023 PCRLJ 305 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-07-15
  transitory remandarrest without warrantcognizable offenceterritorial jurisdictionpolice pursuitmagistrate remandhabeas corpus
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged orders passed by respondents dismissing his petition under section 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and granting one day transitory remand following his arrest in Islamabad by police officials from Murree in connection with a cognizable offence. The core legal question was whether police from another jurisdiction could arrest a person without a warrant for a cognizable offence and whether section 86 Cr.P.C. applied in the absence of court-issued arrest warrants. The Islamabad High Court held that section 86 Cr.P.C. applies exclusively when warrants have been issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, and that police are empowered under sections 54 and 58 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to arrest without a warrant and pursue an accused anywhere in Pakistan for a cognizable offence. The court laid down the principle that where an arrest is made without a warrant for a cognizable offence, the provisions relating to warrant-based procedures such as section 86 are inapplicable, and the arrested person must be produced before the nearest magistrate within twenty-four hours in accordance with sections 60, 61, and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply when an arrest is effected without a warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Can police officers arrest a person without a warrant outside their local territorial jurisdiction for a cognizable offence?
  • Whether the police are authorized to pursue an accused person into any place in Pakistan under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal requirement for presenting a person arrested without a warrant before a magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Junaid Maseeh vs The State through PS CTW, FIA, Islamabad and 2 others2023 MLD 47 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-01
  Intra Court Appealquashing of FIRwrit petitionmaintainabilityOfficial Secrets Actcriminal investigationcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenged an order of a learned Single Judge-in-Chambers, which dismissed a writ petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The primary legal question was whether an Intra Court Appeal is maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition concerning the quashing of an FIR, in view of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The Court held that the appeal was not maintainable. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court determined that the term "proceedings" in the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, precludes such appeals. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, relates to the cognizance of an offence by a court and does not restrict the registration of an FIR. Additionally, the Court affirmed that departmental proceedings under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020, do not preclude criminal investigation or prosecution for the same conduct. The appeal was consequently dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Intra Court Appeal maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition regarding the quashing of an FIR?
  • Does Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, place an embargo on the registration of an FIR?
  • Do departmental proceedings under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020, preclude the criminal investigation or prosecution of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Junaid Iqbal vs Hanfia Alamgir Jama Masjid Trust & Others2023 SHC 379 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-29Read full judgment →
• Junaid Ali vs The State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2023 SCMR 1514, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 58 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-15
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycriminal appealstatement under section 164 Cr.P.C.murderbail granting
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Peshawar High Court, whereby post-arrest bail was denied to the petitioner in a case registered under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 15 of the Arms Act 2013. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in the absence of direct or tangible incriminating material connecting him to the alleged crime. The Supreme Court held that where the sole material against the accused is a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 pointing an accusing finger without any supporting source or material, and in the absence of direct evidence, the case calls for further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing appropriate bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does a case call for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the only material connecting the accused is a bald statement under section 164 without any supporting source?
  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when there is no direct evidence linking the petitioner to the crime?
  • Can a criminal petition be converted into an appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Junaid Ahmed vs The State2023 MLD 17 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2021-04-06
  superdaricase propertycheque encashmentcivil and criminal liabilitycriminal petitionadmitted liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking superdari of an original disputed cheque impounded as case property in an FIR under sections 420 and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether an original cheque, held as case property in a criminal case, could be handed over on superdari to the petitioner for encashment against an admitted civil liability, or alternatively, whether a fresh cheque could be issued. The Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan held that civil and criminal liabilities are distinct and do not bear upon each other, and a person cannot be denied a civil right or payment of an admitted liability merely due to a pending criminal case. The Court ruled that the disputed original cheque could be released on superdari by retaining a certified photocopy, or a fresh cheque could be issued to clear the admitted liability, thereby setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an original cheque impounded as case property in a criminal case be released on superdari for encashment against an admitted civil liability?
  • Does the registration of a criminal case against a person disentitle them from recovering an admitted civil liability?
  • What alternative remedies are available to a court when refusing superdari of a disputed cheque that represents an admitted civil claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Junaid Ahmad vs The State2023 PHC 362 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-05
  circumstantial evidencemurderdeath sentencechain of custodybenefit of doubtfingerprint evidenceunwitnessed occurrenceacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Junaid Ahmad, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of five family members and sentencing him to death on five counts, along with a conviction under Section 15 of the Arms Act, while acquitting the co-accused. The Peshawar High Court addressed whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—including disputed fingerprints, unsealed weapon recoveries, and delayed dispatch of evidence—was sufficient to form an unbroken chain of custody and prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a blind, unwitnessed murder case. The court held that the investigation suffered from severe lapses, failures in proper evidence collection, broken chains of custody, and insufficient links to establish guilt conclusively. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and death sentences, acquitted the appellant, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the connected appeal against the co-accused's acquittal. The key principle laid down is that a conviction based exclusively on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken, high-quality chain of custody and circumstances that completely rule out any reasonable hypothesis of the accused's innocence, and any reasonable doubt arising from investigative flaws must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on circumstantial evidence when the chain of circumstances is incomplete and plagued by investigative flaws?
  • Whether the failure to properly secure and seal fingerprints and weapon recoveries vitiates the evidentiary value of such circumstantial evidence?
  • Does a positive fingerprint report alone suffice to maintain a capital conviction in the absence of proper procedural safeguards during its collection?
  • When should an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by a trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Junaid Abbasi vs Azad Government of The State of Jammu And Kashmir2023 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 116 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs Zarif and another2023 PCRLJ 693 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-19
  appeal against acquittalabetmentsection 265-K CrPCmurdercompromisePeshawar High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Charsadda, whereby the accused/respondent was acquitted under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the acquittal of the respondent, who was charged with abetment under Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, was justified in the absence of tangible evidence connecting him to the crime, and whether the trial court could exercise powers under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before recording evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that mere bald allegations without tangible evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid are insufficient to prove abetment, and that the trial court has ample power under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit an accused to prevent a protracted trial when there is no probability of conviction. The court laid down the principle that judgments of acquittal will not be lightly interfered with unless based on a perverse process of reasoning or wrong assumptions of facts, and dismissed the appeal in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be acquitted under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before recording prosecution evidence?
  • Does a mere bald allegation of abetment without tangible evidence satisfy the legal requirements of Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What are the governing principles and scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Judicial Activism Panel, etc. vs The Federation of Pakistan, etc.2023 LHC 4329, 2023 CLC 1947 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-08Read full judgment →
• Judicial Activism Panel, etc vs The Federation of Pakistan, etc2023 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-08Read full judgment →
• Judicial Activism Panel vs Government of Pakistan, etc2023 LHC 5568, 2024 YLR 1961 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-31Read full judgment →
• Jubilee Life Insurance vs Sumera Imran2023 CLD 544 · Insurance Appellate Tribunal Punjab · 2023-03-31Read full judgment →
• JS Bank Limited through duly authorized/attorney and others vs Pakistan2023 PTD 704 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-31
  constitutional petitionshow-cause noticeFederal Excise Act 2005Special Judge jurisdictionimposition of penaltyalternative remedywithout lawful authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, a banking company and its officers, filed writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging show-cause notices and Orders-in-Original issued by the tax authorities under Section 19(6) of the Federal Excise Act, 2005, which imposed a substantial monetary penalty for alleged obstruction of Inland Revenue officers during recovery proceedings against a bank customer. The legal question before the High Court was whether the executive tax authorities possessed the jurisdiction to directly impose penal fines and penalize criminal offences under Section 19(6) of the Act, or whether such alleged offences could only be tried by a Special Judge upon a formal written complaint under Section 21. The High Court held that Section 19(6) defines a criminal offence carrying both imprisonment and fine, which under Section 21 falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Judge upon a complaint in writing by an authorized Inland Revenue officer. Consequently, the executive officers acted without jurisdiction, making the constitutional petition maintainable despite alternative statutory remedies. The court set aside the impugned show-cause notices and orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can a monetary fine or penalty under Section 19(6) of the Federal Excise Act 2005 be imposed through an executive order without a trial before a Special Judge?
  • Is a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution maintainable against a show-cause notice or order passed without jurisdiction despite the availability of a statutory right of appeal?
  • Does an allegation of obstructing an Inland Revenue officer under Section 19(6) of the Federal Excise Act 2005 require trial by a Special Judge on a written complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Joint Venture of M/s. Kamal Nasir Khan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized2023 PLJ Islamabad 119, 2023 CLC 1657 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas and another vs StatePLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-02
  murder convictionspur of the momentocular evidenceinterested witnessessentence reductionprivate complaintpre-meditation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against the conviction of the petitioners for the murder of Muhammad Sarfraz, initially tried under a private complaint. The petitioners were convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the conviction and sentence were justified given the circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the ocular account provided by the prosecution witnesses was reliable and consistent with medical evidence, despite the witnesses' relationship to the deceased. However, the Court found that the incident occurred at the spur of the moment without pre-meditation, as the parties had gathered to discuss a family dispute. Consequently, the Court modified the conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that while relationship to the deceased does not invalidate witness testimony, the absence of pre-meditation warrants a more lenient sentencing approach.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased automatically invalidate their testimony in a murder trial?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to Section 302(c) if the offense occurred at the spur of the moment without pre-meditation?
  • Is the delayed submission of recovered weapons to a chemical examiner a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Joint Venture Between Messrs Tariq Glass Industries Limited and Messrs ICI2023 CLD 64 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2022-07-07Read full judgment →
• Johnson Controls Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorised Representative vs Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan through Registrar of Companies2023 CLD 162 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
• Jind Wadda and others vs General Manager NHA (LM & Is), Islamabad2023 SCP 85 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-15
  land acquisitioncompensation enhancementburden of proofmarket value of landcompulsory acquisitionvaluation of agricultural land
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a land acquisition dispute concerning property in D.I. Khan acquired for the N-55 road project. The appellants challenged the Land Acquisition Collector's award, seeking enhancement of compensation. While the Referee Judge initially enhanced the compensation from Rs.33,657/- to Rs.96,830/- per kanal, the appellants further appealed to the High Court, which dismissed their claim. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that the lower courts failed to properly assess the land's potential, location, and future prospects, arguing for a significantly higher valuation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof required to justify further enhancement. The Court emphasized that in land acquisition cases, landowners must produce tangible, independent, and credible evidence regarding the specific value of the subject land, including its fertility, surrounding development, and comparable sales. As the appellants provided no documentary proof to support their claim of a higher market value and failed to demonstrate any misreading of evidence by the lower courts, the Supreme Court upheld the existing compensation award.

  Questions settled

  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie in a land acquisition case seeking enhancement of compensation?
  • Is a landowner entitled to enhanced compensation for acquired land without producing independent and credible evidence of higher market value?
  • What factors must be considered when determining the market value of acquired land for compensation purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Jind Wadda and others vs General Manager Nha (Lm & Is), Islamabad and others2023 SCMR 1005 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-15
  land acquisitioncompensation enhancementburden of proofmarket value of landagricultural landreference petitionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the appellants' Regular First Appeal concerning the acquisition of their land for a road project. The core legal question involves the determination of proper compensation and market value for acquired agricultural land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether the appellants discharged the burden of proof required for enhancement. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that landowners seeking enhancement of compensation must provide independent, trustworthy, and credible evidence regarding market value, fertility, location, and surrounding development. The Court established that mere assertions without tangible documentary proof or comparable sale instances are insufficient to overturn concurrent findings of lower fora regarding land valuation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether landowners seeking enhancement of compensation for acquired land can succeed without producing independent, trustworthy, and credible evidence?
  • Does the burden of proof lie upon the landowners to establish a higher market value of their acquired property?
  • Can a court rely on a commission's report for land valuation if it is determined without supporting material or proof on the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Jehanzeb son of Khushal Khan and others vs Government of Khyber2023 SCP 380, 2024 SCMR 199, 2024 PLJ SC 285 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-07
  renaming villagepublic objectionsLand Record ManualKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Councils Rulesprocedural fairnesspublic interestlacheswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal assailed the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, which declared null and void a provincial government notification changing the name of village Tamba Maira to Maira Swati Abad and the subsequent order renaming the local public school. The core legal question was whether the government could change the official name of a village without following a procedure to invite public objections and suggestions. The Supreme Court observed that although the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Councils Naming and Renaming of Public Places Rules, 1994 specifically cover roads, streets, squares, and parks, the same procedural principles must apply when changing a village name under Para 7.69 of the Land Record Manual. Because official village names affect revenue records, postal addresses, and private documentation, altering a name without newspaper publication to invite public objections violates the rights of the inhabitants. Holding that the unilateral process was discriminatory and illegal, and that laches could not bar public interest claims, the Supreme Court maintained the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is procedural publication for public objections required before the government changes the official name of a village under the Land Record Manual?
  • Can the rules for naming public places be applied to the process of renaming a village?
  • Does laches bar a judicial review challenge brought in the interest of the general public regarding village renaming?
  Read full judgment →
• JDW Sugar Mills Limited & others, JK Sugar Mills Private Limited & another2023 SHC 106, 2024 PLD Sindh 348 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-07Read full judgment →
• Jawwad S.Khawaja vs Fderation of Pakistan, etc2024 SCP 9, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 337, 2023 SCP 190, 2023 SCMR 1732 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-09
  trial of civilianscourt martialmilitary courtsfundamental rightsfair trialdue processindependence of judiciaryseparation of powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions challenging the legality and vires of Section 2(1)(d) (in both sub-clauses (i) and (ii)) and Section 59(4) of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, which permit the trial of civilians by courts martial. The core legal questions concern whether subjecting civilians to military trials violates fundamental rights—specifically the right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10A, the right to life and liberty under Article 9, and the equality clause under Article 25—alongside the principles of judicial independence and separation of powers enshrined in Article 175 of the Constitution. A majority of the court held that the impugned provisions are ultra vires the Constitution and of no legal effect, declaring that civilians cannot be tried by courts martial and must be tried by ordinary or special criminal courts established under the law. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional guarantees of fundamental rights, fair trial, and an independent judiciary cannot be bypassed or suspended to subject civilians to military justice systems during peacetime operation of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the trial of civilians by courts martial under Section 2(1)(d) and Section 59(4) of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Do provisions allowing military trials of civilians contravene the right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can ordinary citizens be subjected to the military justice system while the Constitution is operating in its normal default mode?
  • Whether Article 8(3)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 exempts laws relating to the Armed Forces from fundamental rights scrutiny in respect of civilians who are not members of the armed forces?
  Read full judgment →
• Jawaid Sarwar vs Rana Munir & another2023 SHC 274 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-07Read full judgment →
• Jawad Ahmad Mir vs Prof. Dr. Imtiaz Ali Khan, Vice Chancellor, University of Swabi, District Swabi, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2023 PLC (C.S) 813 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-18
  stopgap arrangementlook-after chargeacting chargewrit of quo warrantouniversity vice chancellorpublic interest litigationlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a Peshawar High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition that challenged a government notification. The notification had authorized the Vice Chancellor of the University of Swabi to look after the affairs of the Women University, Swabi, as a stopgap arrangement following the expiry of the previous Vice Chancellor's tenure. The petitioner contended that under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act 2012, the Pro Vice Chancellor should have been appointed as Acting Vice Chancellor, and that look-after charge was unauthorized. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that no Pro Vice Chancellor or permanent faculty was available at the Women University to take charge, making the stopgap arrangement necessary to prevent administrative and academic disruption. The Court held that look-after or additional charge given under exceptional circumstances as a stopgap arrangement does not confer substantive rights and is distinct from regular recruitment. It further clarified the scope of a writ of quo warranto, emphasizing that it requires showing that a public office is held by a usurper without legal authority. Finding no illegality in the temporary arrangement, the Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acting or look-after charge assigned as a stopgap arrangement confers any substantive right or claim to the post upon the incumbent?
  • What are the essential grounds and conditions required for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Can a former public office holder claim an extension of tenure as a vested right upon the expiry of their term?
  • Is a petitioner required to meet the strict definition of an 'aggrieved person' to maintain a petition for a writ of quo warranto?
  Read full judgment →
• Javid Khan vs Arshid Khan and another2023 SCP 356, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 73 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-15
  post-arrest bailfurther enquirycriminal investigationpolice conductbail applicationjudicial administration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was nominated in an FIR registered on 8 August 2022 regarding the death of a young boy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence and the quality of the police investigation. The Supreme Court observed that the investigation was handled incompetently, noting that the police report relied solely on statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which the Court found implausible. The Court held that the case constituted a matter of further enquiry, thereby admitting the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that public servants should avoid honorifics like 'sahib' in their job titles to prevent perceptions of unaccountability and delusions of grandeur. Additionally, the Court criticized the practice of police officers travelling to the Supreme Court to deliver documents that could have been transmitted electronically, emphasizing that such practices waste resources and fail to treat judicial matters with appropriate seriousness.

  Questions settled

  • Does the reliance solely on Section 161 statements in a police report constitute a ground for further enquiry in a bail application?
  • Is the use of honorifics such as 'sahib' by public servants in official proceedings acceptable?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant bail when the investigation of a criminal case is found to be incompetently handled?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed vs The State etc2023 PHC 102 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-22
  murder trialquantum of sentencemitigating circumstanceabsence of motiveocular accountdeath sentence reductionlife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b), Section 324, and Section 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentencing him to death and imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the absence of motive warrants a mitigation of the death sentence. The Peshawar High Court held that the ocular testimony of the eyewitnesses, corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, sufficiently proved the appellant's involvement in the crime. However, the court found that the complete absence of a proved motive acts as a mitigating circumstance in capital sentencing. The ratio decidendi is that while direct and consistent ocular evidence is sufficient to maintain a murder conviction, an unproven or absent motive serves as a valid mitigating ground to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment. The court partially allowed the appeal by converting the death sentence to life imprisonment while maintaining the remaining convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Does the complete absence of a proved motive serve as a sufficient mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can the uncorroborated presence of an injured eyewitness and a natural witness form the basis of a murder conviction?
  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to establish a motive vitiates the entire conviction or merely affects the quantum of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed vs The State and others2023 YLR 2097 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-22
  murderquantum of sentencemitigating circumstanceabsence of motiveocular evidencedeath sentence reductioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bannu, for the murder of Mst. Robina Bibi and related offences. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction and whether the absence of a proven motive warrants a reduction in the quantum of sentence. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent ocular testimony from the complainant and the injured husband, which was corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. The Court found no grounds for false implication given the familial relationship between the parties. However, noting that the prosecution failed to establish any motive for the crime at any stage of the proceedings, the Court applied the established legal principle that the absence of motive serves as a mitigating circumstance in determining the quantum of punishment. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment, while upholding the remaining sentences and extending the benefit of section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a proven motive for a crime constitute a mitigating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular testimony when the motive remains unproven?
  • Is the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to a sentence of life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Shah and others vs The State and others2023 MLD 1864 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-01
  murderjudicial confessionbenefit of doubtretracted confessioncircumstantial evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants were convicted by the trial court for the murder of the deceased, allegedly committed by strangulation after administering an intoxicant, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case relied heavily on a judicial confession made by one appellant and circumstantial evidence. Upon appeal, the Sindh High Court examined the validity of the confession and the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, including the timing of the arrest, the lack of corroborating forensic evidence (no intoxicants found in the viscera), and the failure to explain the delay in recording the judicial confession. Furthermore, the Court noted that the confession was retracted and lacked evidence of voluntariness. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and that unexplained delays in recording judicial confessions undermine their voluntariness.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in recording a judicial confession affect its voluntariness?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the presence of an alleged intoxicant through chemical examination?
  • Is a retracted judicial confession sufficient for conviction without corroborating evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Nisar vs Jalaluddin and 7 others2023 YLR 621 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-26
  quashing of FIRC Class reportB Class reportinherent powersabuse of processrecovery of minorspolice raid
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate approving a police final report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as 'C' Class in an FIR registered for various offences including criminal house-trespass. The core legal question was whether a police raid conducted pursuant to orders of the High Court for the recovery of minor children constituted an illegal act warranting a criminal case, and whether the final report should have been classified under 'C' Class or 'B' Class. The Sindh High Court held that the raid was carried out lawfully in compliance with its earlier binding orders, and that the impugned FIR was false, malicious, and a nullity in law, thereby falling strictly within the ambit of 'B' Class rather than 'C' Class. Consequently, exercising its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court modified the magistrate's order to dispose of the matter under 'B' Class and dismissed the application while initiating administrative steps against delinquent officials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a police raid conducted in compliance with a High Court order for the recovery of minors constitutes an illegal act or offence?
  • Whether an intentionally false FIR arising from lawful execution of court orders falls under 'B' Class or 'C' Class of police disposal?
  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to modify the classification of a final police report?
  • Whether long-standing police rules and practices regarding the classification of state cases have the force of law under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Khan and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2023 PLC (C.S.) 1280 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-27
  upgradation of postsservice lawright to equalitydiscriminationphysical training instructorsconstitutional petitionservice benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, Physical Training Instructors (PTIs) in Federal Government Educational Institutions (Cantonments and Garrisons), sought the upgradation of their posts to BS-17, alleging discriminatory treatment compared to similarly situated employees in the Federal Directorate of Education who received such benefits. The core legal question was whether the denial of this upgradation violated the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Court held that while upgradation is a policy decision and not an inherent right, once the state decides to grant such benefits to a class of employees to prevent stagnation, it cannot arbitrarily exclude others performing identical duties. The Court found that the respondents had previously recommended the upgradation to remove discrimination and that a similar previous judgment involving a PTI had attained finality. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to upgrade the petitioners' posts. The key principle laid down is that the state cannot discriminate between similarly situated employees in the matter of service benefits like upgradation once a policy decision to grant such benefits has been implemented for a specific cadre.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee claim upgradation of a post as a matter of right?
  • Does the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution prohibit discriminatory denial of service benefits like upgradation to similarly situated employees?
  • Can a government department deny service benefits to a specific group of employees when those benefits have already been granted to others in the same cadre?
  • Does an office memorandum regarding the constitution of a committee for upgradation operate retrospectively?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs The State2023 SCMR 139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-25
  narcoticssafe custodysafe transmissionjudicial confessionbenefit of doubtconscious possessionchain of custodyexculpatory statement
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard an appeal against a life sentence for narcotics trafficking under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged recovery of 25 kilograms of charas from the appellant's vehicle. The core legal questions involved the safe custody and transmission of samples and the evidentiary value of a judicial confession. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce the constable who transported the samples or the Moharrar of the Malkhana, thereby breaking the chain of custody. Furthermore, the Court scrutinized the appellant's judicial confession, which was exculpatory as he claimed no knowledge of the narcotics concealed in the luggage. The Court held that when prosecution evidence is doubtful, a confession must be accepted or rejected as a whole and cannot be split into inculpatory and exculpatory parts. Since the confession, taken in toto, did not establish conscious possession, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt.

  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs The State through D.A.G., Islamabad and another2023 SCMR 401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-01
  post-arrest bailbail conditionscash depositsurety bondPrevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016Section 499 CrPCinterlocutory arrangement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a High Court order granting post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a cybercrime case under Sections 13 and 14 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, and Sections 420, 468, 471, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but conditioning his release on depositing Rs. 3.5 million in the trial court alongside furnishing bail bonds. The core legal issue was whether a court granting post-arrest bail can impose conditions or riders, such as the deposit of disputed monies or fines, beyond requiring the execution of bail bonds with sureties as provided under Section 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the condition requiring the cash deposit. The Court held that bail cannot be subjected to riders or extra-statutory conditions, nor used as a mechanism to enforce monetary recovery or compel compromise, reiterating that Section 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 requires only sufficient bail bonds to secure the accused's attendance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court impose a condition requiring the deposit of cash or disputed money when granting post-arrest bail to an accused?
  • Does Section 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit incorporating conditions other than surety bonds in a bail order?
  • Can the grant of bail be made dependent on the payment of a fine or the recovery of alleged embezzled funds?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 690 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-26
  criminal revisionvideo evidenceSection 265-C Cr.P.C.disclosure of evidenceadmissibility of evidencePunjab Forensic Science Agencyfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged a trial court order that excluded hard disks containing video evidence of an occurrence from the record. The core legal question was whether a trial court is justified in excluding crucial prosecution evidence simply because copies could not be immediately prepared in court, and what the correct procedure is for ensuring compliance with the mandatory disclosure requirements under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the trial court’s attempt to have the disks copied by an unqualified official was unwarranted. The Court ruled that video recordings constitute documents and are vital evidence. Consequently, the trial court was directed to facilitate the preparation of copies through a competent IT department or the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. The judgment establishes that procedural failures in providing copies to the accused should be remedied through proper administrative channels rather than by excluding material evidence, as the court must ensure the fair administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does a video recording of a crime scene constitute a document under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is the provision of copies of prosecution evidence to the accused under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory?
  • Can a trial court exclude crucial prosecution evidence solely due to the failure to prepare copies in open court?
  • What is the appropriate procedure for a trial court to follow when copies of digital evidence are required for the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs StatePLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 21 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-25
  narcotics traffickingchain of custodyjudicial confessionbenefit of doubtexculpatory statementcriminal appealsafe transmission
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions concerned the prosecution's failure to establish a continuous chain of custody for the recovered narcotics and the permissible use of a judicial confession as the sole basis for conviction. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the sample parcels, creating a fatal gap in the evidence. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that where prosecution evidence is rejected, a judicial confession must be accepted or rejected in its entirety. It cannot be split into pieces to selectively use inculpatory parts while discarding exculpatory elements. The principle laid down is that the prosecution must establish every link in the chain of custody in narcotics cases; failure to do so entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish the safe custody and transmission of narcotics samples entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Can a court selectively accept the inculpatory part of a judicial confession while rejecting the exculpatory part?
  • Is a judicial confession required to be accepted or rejected in its entirety when it serves as the sole basis for conviction?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused before the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs State, etc.2023 PLJ Cr.C. 85 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-26
  video evidencesupply of copiesfair trialdocumentary evidencecriminal revisionforensic analysisSection 265-C Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order by the Trial Court excluding hard disks containing video evidence of the occurrence from the record. The prosecution relied on these hard disks, which were secured during investigation and analyzed by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. Initially, the Trial Court ordered the prosecution to provide copies of this evidence to the accused under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. However, when a police official present in court failed to copy the data, the Trial Court ordered the exclusion of the evidence. The High Court held that video evidence constitutes a document under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and is crucial for determining the case. It ruled that the Trial Court's decision to exclude the evidence due to a technical failure by an unqualified individual was legally unsustainable. The High Court set aside the impugned order, directing the Trial Court to ensure copies are prepared by a competent laboratory, such as the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, emphasizing that compliance with Section 265-C is mandatory for a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a video recording or hard disk containing video footage constitute a document under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is the prosecution legally obligated to supply copies of video evidence to the accused under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court exclude critical prosecution evidence solely because of a failure to produce copies of that evidence in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs Shaheen Iqbal and others2023 PLD Balochistan 105 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-05Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal Burqi vs Federation of Pakistan and 06 others2023 SHC 202 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-13Read full judgment →
• Javed Imran vs Muhammad Arif2023 CLC 1363 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
• Javed Hameed, etc vs Aman Ullah, etc2023 SCP 346, 2024 SCMR 89, 2024 PLJ SC 306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-10
  frivolous litigationabuse of processproperty rightsfundamental rightspossession of landcostsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against concurrent findings of the trial, appellate, and revisional courts, which dismissed the petitioners' suit. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit after the petitioners failed to produce evidence over a seven-year period. The Supreme Court found that the petitioners, who were in illegal possession of the respondents' land, had abused the court process to delay litigation and deprive the rightful owners of their property, thereby violating the respondents' fundamental right under Article 23 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the impugned judgments were legally sound and that the petitioners' conduct constituted frivolous litigation. Consequently, the Court declined leave to appeal, dismissed the petition with costs of one million rupees, and ordered the petitioners to surrender possession of the land. The key principle laid down is that courts must be vigilant against the abuse of judicial process, actively discourage frivolous litigation, and impose costs to prevent parties from perpetuating wrongdoing through protracted legal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court impose costs on petitioners for filing frivolous litigation?
  • Does the abuse of court process to maintain illegal possession of property violate fundamental rights?
  • Are courts empowered to order the surrender of possession as a consequence of dismissing a frivolous suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Javaid Khan son of Khan Amir vs The State & another2023 PHC 570, 2024 YLR 1611 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-25Read full judgment →
• Javaid Iqbal vs Muhammad Faheem Kiani and 05 others2023 SC AJK 38 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-05-11Read full judgment →
• Janat Gul vs Muhammad Saeed and another2023 PCRLJ 1213 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-20
  murderbenefit of doubtimprovements in testimonysole eye-witnesspointationdiscoverymedical evidencerecovery of weaponcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and criminal revision arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for the murder of the complainant's son under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the sole ocular witness—who was the father of the deceased and had made major, dishonest improvements between his initial report (murasila) and his supplementary statement—as well as the admissibility of pointation evidence and the credibility of weapon recoveries. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, lack of independent corroboration, inadmissible pointation evidence under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and doubtful weapon recoveries. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant and dismissed the revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence, laying down that substantial improvements by a sole witness destroy credibility, and that pointation of a known crime scene does not constitute a discovery under Article 40.

  Questions settled

  • Whether substantial improvements made by a sole witness in a supplementary statement render their testimony unreliable for sustaining a capital conviction?
  • Is the pointation of a crime scene already known to the police admissible as a discovery under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can medical evidence alone substitute for a missing or untrustworthy ocular account to prove the guilt of an accused?
  • What is the evidentiary value of weapon recoveries when the arresting officer denies making any incriminating recovery from the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Janan Khan Achakzai vs The State Bank of Pakistan Banking Services2023 PLD Balochistan 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-16Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad Tayab vs Federation of Pakistan & others2023 LHC 429, 2024 CLD 575, 2024 PLD Lahore 211 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-01Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad alias Khafai Pahore and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1572 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-12
  qatl-i-amdcommon objectindividual liabilitycontents of judgmentremand of casecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd on the basis of individual liability, while ignoring the charges under Sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding common object. The core legal question was whether a trial court can decide a double murder case involving multiple accused on the basis of individual liability without recording a proper finding on common intention or common object, and without complying with the mandatory judgment-writing provisions of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court's judgment, which failed to determine common object and omitted distinct findings and sentences for all charged offences, was in defiance of law and Supreme Court precedent. The Court set aside the impugned judgment, allowed the appeal, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for writing a fresh judgment in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court decide a murder case involving multiple accused on the basis of individual liability while ignoring charges relating to a common object or common intention?
  • Is it mandatory for a trial court under Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to specify distinct findings and sentences for each distinct offence of which the accused is found guilty?
  • Does a failure to record specific findings on common object render a criminal judgment defective and liable to be set aside?
  • Can the omission of a distinct sentence for a charged offence be cured by implication or under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad & another vs The State and another2023 PHC 48, 2024 PCRLJ 585 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-02
  murdercommon intentionforensic evidencecriminal appealacquittalocular evidenceSection 34 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of two appellants for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of both appellants, particularly regarding the application of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court upheld the conviction of the primary appellant, Jan Muhammad, finding the ocular and forensic evidence sufficient to prove his culpability. However, the Court set aside the conviction of the co-appellant, Ali Muhammad. The Court held that forensic reports confirmed the fatal shots were fired exclusively by the primary accused. Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish any active participation, mens rea, or common intention on the part of the co-appellant. The Court affirmed the principle that mere presence at the scene of a crime, without evidence of shared intent or facilitation, is insufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under the doctrine of common intention.

  Questions settled

  • Is mere presence at the scene of a crime sufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a co-accused be convicted for murder when forensic evidence conclusively attributes the fatal act to only one of the accused?
  • Does the failure to prove active participation or mens rea of a co-accused necessitate their acquittal despite their presence at the crime scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamsher Ali Siyal & 82 others vs P.O. Sindh & others2023 SHC 994, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 690 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-28
  service matterseniority adjustmentmaintainabilityconstitutional jurisdictioncivil servantterms and conditions of serviceSindh Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, police constables promoted to Sub-Inspectors in the Sindh Reserve Police, challenged an order issued by the DIGP, Sukkur Range, which adjusted their seniority based on an Enquiry Committee report. The petitioners alleged a violation of the principle of audi alteram partem and discrimination compared to female police officials. The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioners were civil servants, and the matter pertained to terms and conditions of service, falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sindh Service Tribunal. The Court held that the petition was incompetent because the matter related to terms and conditions of service, which are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court further noted that the petitioners had an adequate and efficacious remedy under Section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked to bypass statutory forums established for service matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable before the High Court regarding the seniority of civil servants?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to interfere in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
  • Is the principle of audi alteram partem violated if an Enquiry Committee provides an opportunity for a personal hearing before adjusting seniority?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Khan vs The State2023 YLR 1510 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-29
  qatl-e-amddeath sentenceocular evidenceabsconding accusedattempt to murdercriminal appealmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Jamshed Khan, for the qatl-e-amd of his mother-in-law and the attempted murder of his wife and brother-in-law. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of ocular evidence, the impact of non-recovery of the crime weapon, and whether the prosecution proved its case despite the absence of formal death records for one injured victim. The Sindh High Court held that the testimony of the injured wife and the brother-in-law was natural, credible, and trustworthy, providing a sufficient basis for conviction without requiring further corroboration. The court affirmed that the non-recovery of the weapon did not invalidate the conviction, particularly given the appellant’s prolonged absconsion. Furthermore, the court ruled that the medical evidence sufficiently established the nature of the injuries under Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, even without formal death records for the victim. The court upheld the death sentence, emphasizing that the ocular account, corroborated by medical evidence and the established motive, proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-recovery of a weapon of offense invalidate a conviction when ocular evidence is otherwise credible?
  • Is corroboration of ocular evidence a mandatory rule in criminal trials or a rule of caution?
  • Can a conviction for attempt to commit murder be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce formal death records for an injured victim?
  • Does the burden of proving a specific defense plea lie upon the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Ali Shah vs Irshad Hussain Shah and others2023 SCP 317, 2023 SCMR 2162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-07-19
  specific performanceagreement to sellconcurrent findingscivil revisionleave to appealonus of proofattesting witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision upholding the decree in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The suit was instituted by Respondent No. 1 claiming that the deceased predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had agreed to sell 56 Kanals and 12 Marlas of land, received full consideration, and delivered possession prior to his death. The legal question before the Court was whether the agreement to sell and payment of consideration were duly established by cogent evidence. The Supreme Court observed that Respondent No. 1 examined the attesting witnesses and the representative of the scribe, who proved the transaction, execution, and delivery of possession without their testimony being shaken in cross-examination, while the petitioner failed to discharge the onus of disproving the transaction. Upholding the concurrent findings of three lower forums, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any misreading, non-reading, or legal infirmity in the evidence, no interference was warranted. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts can be set aside in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when challenging an agreement to sell that has been duly proved by attesting witnesses?
  • Whether an agreement to sell executed by a deceased vendor can be specifically enforced against his legal heirs when supported by credible evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Jammu Kashmir Co-Operative Housing Society vs Gulraiz Mehmood and others2023 PLJ Islamabad 105, 2024 MLD 698 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
• Jammu And Kashmir Cooperative Housing Society vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2023 CLC 134 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-14Read full judgment →
• Jamila Bibi and an other vs The State2023 SHC 54 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-28
  criminal appealmurderpoisoningjudicial confessionextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for the murder of the deceased by poisoning, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the significant delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of forensic evidence of poison, and the reliability of the confessions. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. It emphasized that medical evidence finding no poison in the deceased's remains contradicted the prosecution's theory. Furthermore, the Court found the judicial confession involuntary, as it was recorded under a promise of relief, and deemed the extra-judicial confession improbable. The Court reiterated that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted, reinforcing the principle that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution to eliminate all reasonable doubts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a judicial confession recorded under a promise of relief be considered voluntary and admissible?
  • Does medical evidence contradicting the alleged cause of death create reasonable doubt in a murder case?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Can a confessional statement made by one co-accused be used as evidence against another?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamia Masjid Al Siddiq (Regd) Trust & Others vs Province of Sindh & Others2023 SHC 295, 2024 PLD Sindh 336 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-03Read full judgment →
• Jameel Qadir, Muhammad Asif Baloch vs Government of Balochistan, Local Government, Rural Development & Agrovilles Department, Quetta through its Secretary and others2023 SCP 274, 2023 SCMR 1919 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-07-27
  election disputeconstitutional petitionjurisdictionElection Tribunalstatutory barlocal government electionswrit jurisdictiondisputed questions of factcoram non judiceper incuriamexhaustion of remediesfunctus officio
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court heard Civil Petitions for leave to appeal challenging High Court judgments that had set aside orders of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and declared private respondents as returned candidates in local body elections. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to decide election disputes after the constitution of an Election Tribunal, given the statutory bar under Section 37 of the Balochistan Local Government Act, 2010. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by entertaining the petitions without first determining its jurisdiction and by adjudicating disputed questions of fact, effectively assuming the role of an appellate court in writ jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that election disputes, particularly those involving factual controversies, must be resolved by the designated Election Tribunal. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals, allowed them, set aside the High Court's judgments, and remanded the matter back to the High Court to decide the question of its jurisdiction in accordance with law.

  Read full judgment →
• Jameel Ahmed vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary C&W2023 PLC (C.S.) 495 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-23
  Constitutional petitiondisabled quotaestoppelmedically fitpublic service commissionrecruitmentaggrieved person
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the recommendation of the Balochistan Public Service Commission for the appointment of respondent No. 7 against a quota reserved for persons with disabilities. The petitioner, a candidate for the same post, alleged that respondent No. 7 had previously secured employment as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the police department by declaring himself "medically fit" and failing to disclose any disability. The core legal question was whether a candidate is estopped from asserting a disability for one government post after having successfully obtained another position by representing themselves as medically fit. The Court held that the doctrine of estoppel precludes a party from taking inconsistent positions to secure employment. Finding that respondent No. 7 had misrepresented his status, the Court declared the recommendation in his favor void and directed the Commission to recommend the petitioner, who was next in merit, for the position. The judgment establishes that candidates cannot "blow hot and cold" by claiming disability only when convenient, thereby upholding the integrity of the recruitment process for reserved quotas.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate who previously secured government employment by declaring themselves medically fit is estopped from claiming disability for a different post?
  • Does a candidate ranked third on a merit list have the standing of an 'aggrieved person' to challenge the selection of a candidate ranked first?
  • Can a government candidate take inconsistent positions regarding their physical disability status in different recruitment processes?
  Read full judgment →
• Jameel Ahmed and others vs Hayat Muhammad Sher Pao and others2023 SHC 1044, 2024 MLD 1337 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-07Read full judgment →
• Jamaluddin, Rabail vs The State2023 SCP 154, 2023 SCP 244, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 50, 2024 PLJ SC 244, 2024 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-29
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailrule of consistencyattempted murdernon-vital body partfurther inquirydelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from petitions filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking pre-arrest and post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners launched a murderous assault, causing firearm injuries to the complainant and his cousin. The petitioners argued that there was an unexplained three-day delay in lodging the FIR, and that the injuries were on non-vital parts of the body, meaning Section 324 was not attracted. The Supreme Court observed that the injuries were on non-vital parts and the accused did not repeat the fire. Crucially, the Court addressed the differing standards for pre-arrest and post-arrest bail, holding that where co-accused are ascribed the same role, denying pre-arrest bail to one on technical grounds while granting post-arrest bail to the other would be futile, as the arrested accused would immediately qualify for post-arrest bail under the rule of consistency. The Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail and granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the judiciary must protect personal liberty against baseless accusations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging an FIR can be a ground for granting bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a charge under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 justify the refusal of bail if the injuries are on non-vital parts of the body and the accused did not repeat the fire?
  • How does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused with identical roles seek pre-arrest and post-arrest bail respectively?
  • Does the protection of personal liberty under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 override technical distinctions between pre-arrest and post-arrest bail when the accusations require further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamal-Ud-Din Khilji vs The State and another2023 MLD 151 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-08-23
  post-arrest bailmurderindiscriminate firingtentative assessmentcommon intentiondiscretionary reliefcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused in a criminal case involving murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite being nominated in the FIR and alleged to have participated in indiscriminate firing, given the defense's arguments regarding witness statements and site map discrepancies. The High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that there was sufficient material connecting the applicant to the alleged offense. The court emphasized that the applicant's role was similar to a co-accused whose bail had previously been rejected. The court reiterated that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the record is permissible, and deeper appreciation of evidence is prohibited. Furthermore, the court affirmed that bail is a discretionary relief rather than an absolute right, even for offenses outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, it noted that in incidents of indiscriminate firing by multiple assailants, assigning specific roles to each individual is not required at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Is deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage?
  • Can an accused claim bail as a matter of right if the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the difficulty in assigning specific roles to individual assailants during indiscriminate firing entitle an accused to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Jalla and another vs Shell International Trading and Shipping Co. Ltd. and another2023 SCMR 1573 · Supreme Court of United KingdomRead full judgment →
• Jalil Ahmed vs Government of Punjab through Secretary Local2023 PLC (C.S.) 1403 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-26
  dismissal from servicecompetent authorityjudicial defiancereinstatementSection 12(2) CPCdepartmental misconductservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of dismissal from service issued by the Administrator of the Tehsil Municipal Administration (TMA) against the petitioner, a junior clerk. The core legal questions were whether the Administrator was the competent authority to pass the dismissal order under the relevant rules and whether the respondents could circumvent a prior court-ordered reinstatement by issuing a fresh dismissal order without challenging the initial judgment. The Court held that the impugned dismissal order was illegal and issued without lawful authority, noting that the Tehsil Municipal Officer was the competent authority under the Punjab Tehsil/Town Municipal Administration Rules of Business, 2002. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the respondents' attempt to frustrate a final judicial order through administrative action was improper and contemptuous. The Court affirmed the principle that an employee should not suffer for the departmental authorities' own procedural errors or failures. Additionally, the Court dismissed the respondents' application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, ruling that it cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or revision to challenge a judgment that has attained finality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be used as a substitute for an appeal, revision, or review?
  • Can an administrative authority issue a dismissal order to circumvent a previous court-ordered reinstatement without challenging the original judgment?
  • Is an employee liable to suffer the consequences of procedural faults committed by departmental authorities during the appointment process?
  Read full judgment →
• Jalaluddin and others vs Province of Sindh and others2023 SHC 210 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-17
  regularization of servicecontractual employmentpublic service commissionlegitimate expectationright to livelihoodcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, who were declared successful in the written test conducted by the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC) for the post of Staff Nurse (BPS-16) but were appointed on a contract basis due to the COVID-19 pandemic, sought regularization of their services under the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973. The respondents contended that the petitioners subsequently failed the interview stage conducted by the SPSC and were therefore not recommended for regular appointment. The High Court of Sindh observed that although the petitioners failed the initial interview, they had served the department during a critical pandemic period, creating a legitimate expectation of retention. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that the right to livelihood and work warrants protection against whimsical termination. Consequently, the Court directed the Health Department to refer the petitioners' candidatures back to the SPSC for a fresh assessment of their suitability via interviews, during which period the posts held by them must not be filled by direct recruits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract employees appointed during an emergency who failed a subsequent interview can claim regularization as a matter of right?
  • Does the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution require the government to devise a mechanism for reassessing the suitability of long-serving contract employees?
  • Can the posts occupied by contractual employees be filled by direct recruits while their suitability is being reassessed under court directions?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahanzeb Khan vs The State2023 PCRLJ 186 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-14
  criminal appealmurder convictioneye-witness testimonycommutation of sentencerelated witnessesdeath penaltyappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court for offences under sections 302(b) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eye-witness testimony, the impact of alleged delays in FIR registration, and the appropriateness of the death penalty given the evidentiary circumstances. The Sindh High Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution’s evidence—specifically the testimony of the injured complainant and other eye-witnesses—to be consistent, trustworthy, and corroborated by medical and forensic reports. The Court affirmed that related witnesses are credible absent proof of enmity, and that corroboration is a rule of caution rather than a strict legal requirement when eye-witness testimony is reliable. However, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The ratio established that where the prosecution fails to prove motive and it remains unclear whether the appellant’s specific firearm discharge caused the fatal injury, the capital sentence is not warranted, even if guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of related witnesses in the absence of proven enmity?
  • Is corroboration of eye-witness testimony a mandatory rule of law or a rule of caution?
  • Does the failure to prove motive and the inability to attribute the fatal shot to a specific accused justify the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can a conviction be based on the testimony of a single witness if that witness is found to be entirely reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahanzeb Kalmaty and others vs Province of Sindh through Board of Revenue and others2023 SCP 320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-10-18
  consent orderland allocationpayment defaultguarantorsallotteesimplementation of decreeMalir Development Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the implementation of a consent order dated 21 March 2019 regarding land allocation and payment obligations involving Bahria Town (Pvt.) Limited, the Malir Development Authority (MDA), and the Government of Sindh. Bahria Town alleged it received less land than agreed, leading to a cessation of payments, while other parties disputed the extent of land possession and entitlement to the paid funds. The Court addressed issues regarding the non-functioning of a previously constituted Commission, the potential for varying or modifying the consent order, and the status of individual allottees seeking to be arrayed as parties. The Court held that individual allottees would not be arrayed as parties to prevent procedural delays, though their counsel may attend proceedings to protect their interests. The Court directed the Government of Sindh, MDA, and the Sindh Building Control Authority to file concise statements with supporting documentation regarding land ownership, sale, and project approvals. Furthermore, the Court issued notices to the guarantors of the payment obligations and entities involved in foreign remittances to ensure transparency and compliance with the consent order.

  Questions settled

  • Can individual allottees be arrayed as parties in a complex litigation involving thousands of stakeholders to prevent procedural delay?
  • What is the procedure when a Commission constituted by a court order fails to function due to the non-appointment of its Chairman?
  • Can a consent order passed by the Supreme Court be varied, modified, or amended?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas and another vs The State2023 SCMR 487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-02
  MurderPrivate complaintOcular accountMedical evidencePre-meditationSpur of the momentConvictionSentence modificationWitness testimonyDiscrepancies
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerned a petition challenging the conviction of two individuals for murder under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C., originating from a private complaint filed due to dissatisfaction with police investigation. The Trial Court had convicted the petitioners under Section 302(b), P.P.C., imposing a life sentence, which the High Court subsequently upheld. The central legal questions addressed included the presence of material contradictions in eye-witness testimonies, the credibility of related witnesses, the consistency between ocular and medical evidence, and whether the offense constituted pre-meditated murder or an act committed at the spur of the moment. The Supreme Court affirmed the reliability of the ocular account and its consistency with medical evidence, rejecting arguments regarding minor discrepancies and related witnesses. However, the Court determined that the incident occurred at the spur of the moment, without pre-meditation, provoked by the complainant party's visit. Consequently, the conviction was modified from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c), P.P.C., and the sentence was reduced to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment for each petitioner.

  Read full judgment →
• Jahanzaib Kalmaty and others vs Province of Sindh through Board of Revenue and others2023 SCP 367, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-23
  land shortfallconsent orderBahria Townsurvey reportdefault of installmentsforeign remittancesrecord keeping of allotments
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from multiple civil miscellaneous applications filed by Bahria Town (Private) Limited seeking a declaration of a land shortfall and a moratorium on payment installments under a previous consent order of the Supreme Court dated 21 March 2019. The core legal question concerned whether Bahria Town suffered a genuine land shortfall justifying the suspension of its financial obligations, and the handling of foreign remittances deposited into the Supreme Court's account. The Court held that Bahria Town's allegations of a land shortfall were a false pretext and an abuse of process, as a comprehensive scientific survey conducted by the Survey of Pakistan revealed no shortfall and instead exposed unauthorized land occupation by Bahria Town. The Court dismissed Bahria Town's applications, ordered the remittance of foreign funds linked to UK National Crime Agency freezing orders to the Federal Government, directed the disbursement of land cost installments to the Government of Sindh, and highlighted regulatory gaps in housing scheme allotments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party to a consent order can suspend payment obligations on the unverified pretext of a land shortfall?
  • How should foreign remittances detected and frozen by foreign law enforcement agencies and deposited into court accounts be handled?
  • Whether a land developer in default of structured payment installments under a judicial settlement is liable to pay costs and have its suspension applications dismissed?
  • What measures are necessary to regulate and maintain electronic records of property allotments by developers to protect public interest?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahangir Khan. vs Abdul Ghaffar (deceased) through L.Rs. etc.2023 LHC 6290 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-01Read full judgment →
• Jahandad Khan and another vs Mst. Rokhana2023 YLR 2197 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-12Read full judgment →
• Jaffer Ali G. Hussain Shivji vs Kamran Sadiq & others2023 SHC 248 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-01Read full judgment →
• Jaffar Khan vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 3 others2023 PLD Balochistan 65 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
• Jaag Broadcasting (Private) Limited vs Pakistan Electronic Media2023 SHC 240, 2024 CLC 534 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-30Read full judgment →
• J.K. Twills and Drills (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized Director and another vs Premier Insurance Company of Pakistan Limited and another2023 CLD 1098 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →