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.

• Israr Ali and 3 others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs Department and 2 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 358 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-13
  regularization of servicescontractual employeesSpecial Police Officerscut-off datereading inreading downvested rightswrit petitionArticle 199
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking regularization of their services as Special Police Officers under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Special Police Officers (Regularization of Services) Act, 2019. The core legal questions involved whether contractual employees could claim regularization without statutory backing, whether the court could read in or modify statutory terms where the language is clear, and whether a writ petition is maintainable without showing a violation of a fundamental, legal, or vested right. The Peshawar High Court held that contractual employees have no vested right to seek regularization unless backed by statute. Applying Section 3 of the Act of 2019, which required holding the post on the cut-off date of 1st August 2019, the Court found that petitioners Nos. 1, 3, and 4 were appointed after that date and were ineligible, whereas petitioner No. 2 met the condition. The Court laid down that clear statutory terms cannot be expanded by courts and that Article 199 requires proof of an infringed legal or fundamental right.

  Questions settled

  • Can contractual employees claim regularization of their services without a legal or statutory basis?
  • Can a court 'read in' or 'read down' provisions in a statute when the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous?
  • Is a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution maintainable without demonstrating the violation of a fundamental, legal, or vested right?
  • Can an illegal practice or order be claimed as a right under the principle of non-discrimination?
  Read full judgment →
• Israr Ahmad and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secratery Finance and others2023 PHC 500 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ismail vs The State2023 MLD 942 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-17
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoverypolice animosityfurther inquiryControl of Narcotic Substances Actmalicious implication
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, relating to the alleged recovery of 1150 grams of charas. The core legal questions involved whether a case for further inquiry was made out in view of the missing details regarding chemical examination samples, the completion of investigation, and the serious allegations of previous mala fides and police animosity supported by prior legal proceedings initiated by the applicant and his family against local police officials. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant successfully made out a case for post-arrest bail, considering the tentative nature of the material, previous litigation indicating potential victimization, and the fact that all witnesses were police officials with no risk of evidence tampering. The court laid down that where substantial material regarding prior police animosity and doubtful procedural compliance (such as sample collection) is brought on record, further inquiry into the guilt of the accused is warranted under the law, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when there is material on record showing prior animosity and litigation between the accused and the local police?
  • Does the failure to mention the drawing of samples for chemical examination in the FIR create a ground for further inquiry under the bail jurisdiction?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and all cited witnesses are police officials, leaving no apprehension of evidence tampering?
  Read full judgment →
• Ismail vs Nazreen and others2023 CLC 69 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-26Read full judgment →
• Ismail Industries Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan and Two Others2023 SHC 1034 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-30Read full judgment →
• Ismail Ijaz vs The State2023 PCRLJ 114 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-28
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausealternative punishmentcybercrimeproscribed organizationfreedom of speechright to liberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed before the Islamabad High Court by the petitioner, who was charged under sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 for allegedly tweeting and retweeting content glorifying and propagating a proscribed organization. The core legal question was whether offences carrying fine as an alternative punishment to imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court held that where fine is provided as an alternative punishment, the lesser punishment must be considered for the purpose of bail, meaning such offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause. Furthermore, questions regarding the petitioner's intent (mens rea) in retweeting required further inquiry. The Court laid down the principle that bail cannot be withheld as a punishment pending trial, and unjustified pre-trial incarceration violates the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, as restitution for lost liberty is impossible if the accused is ultimately acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether offences where fine is prescribed as an alternative punishment to imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can bail be withheld as a punishment pending trial when the alternative punishment for the charged offence is a fine?
  • Does the act of retweeting content without establishing immediate intent (mens rea) to glorify a proscribed organization make a case one of further inquiry?
  • Does pre-trial incarceration violate the right to liberty under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, when no mechanism exists to compensate for unjustified loss of liberty?
  Read full judgment →
• Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Law and Justice, Govt. of Pakistan, Islamabad and others vs Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and others2024 SCP 168, 2024 SCP 364, 2023 SCP 336, 2024 SCP 186, 2024 SCP 296, PLJ · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-23
  Intra Court AppealNAB OrdinanceNational Accountability BureauArticle 184(3)Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023judicial reviewfundamental rightspublic servantretrospective legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  These Intra-Court Appeals were filed under Section 5 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 against the majority judgment of a three-member Bench of the Supreme Court which had declared several provisions of the 2022 amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 unconstitutional. The core legal questions pertained to whether a three-member bench had jurisdiction to decide constitutional interpretation matters following the enactment of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, whether the original petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution was maintainable without establishing direct violation of fundamental rights, and whether Parliament possessed the legislative competence to retrospectively amend statutory provisions governing accountability. Setting aside the impugned judgment, the Supreme Court held that the original petition failed to demonstrate a direct nexus or actionable infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 9, 14, 23, 24, or 25. The Court reaffirmed that judiciary must exercise restraint and lean towards upholding primary legislation unless explicit constitutional violations are proven, maintaining that Parliament retains full competence to amend or alter statutory frameworks.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court strike down primary legislation under Article 184(3) without establishing a direct violation of fundamental rights?
  • Are elected parliamentarians considered public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is Parliament empowered to enact retrospective legislative amendments that alter the jurisdiction or scope of statutory bodies like NAB?
  • Does the omission of evidentiary presumptions under statutory accountability laws violate constitutional provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Islamabad Medical and Dental College vs Dr. Suleman Ahmed, Acting2023 IHC 182, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 18 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Islamabad High Court, Bar Association, Islamabad through President and others vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad and others2023 PLD Supreme Court 720 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-27
  general electionsdissolution of provincial assemblyappointment of election datepresident's powersgovernor's powerselection commission of pakistanconstitutional time limitsuo motu jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the constitutional responsibility and authority for appointing the date for general elections to Provincial Assemblies upon their dissolution under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Following the dissolution of the Provincial Assemblies of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, questions arose regarding which constitutional or statutory functionary is empowered to fix the poll date within the mandatory ninety-day period. The majority of the Supreme Court held that where a Provincial Assembly is dissolved by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister, the Governor must appoint the election date under Article 105(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. In situations where the Assembly stands dissolved by efflux of time after the Governor fails to act on the Chief Minister's advice, the power to announce the election date vests in the President pursuant to Section 57(1) of the Elections Act 2017, and the President acts independently without requiring cabinet or ministerial advice. The Court further held that the Federation and Provincial Governments have a mandatory duty under Articles 148(3) and 220 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to provide necessary security, personnel, and facilities to the Election Commission of Pakistan to ensure timely elections.

  Questions settled

  • Who has the constitutional responsibility and authority for appointing the date for holding a general election to a Provincial Assembly upon its dissolution under various constitutional situations?
  • Whether the President, when announcing an election date under Section 57(1) of the Elections Act 2017, is bound to act on the advice of the Prime Minister or Cabinet?
  • Does the power of the Governor to appoint an election date under Article 105(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply when an Assembly is dissolved by efflux of time after the Governor fails to act on the Chief Minister's advice?
  • What are the constitutional responsibilities and duties of the Federation and Provinces regarding the provision of security and facilities for holding timely general elections?
  Read full judgment →
• Islamabad High Court Bar Association Islamabad through President Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, Advocate Supreme Court, Islamabad and others vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad and others2023 SCMR 1935 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-01
  general electionsprovincial assembly dissolutionconstitutional imperativesuo motuoriginal jurisdictionelection datecaretaker cabinet
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in its original jurisdiction, concerning the constitutional obligations to hold timely general elections following the dissolution of the Provincial Assemblies of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. By a 3:2 majority, the Court held that parliamentary democracy and the periodic holding of elections within the constitutionally mandated 90-day timeframe are essential imperatives. Interpreting Article 105(3)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 57(1) of the Elections Act 2017, the Court established that where an assembly is dissolved by an order of the Governor, the Governor must appoint the election date. Conversely, where dissolution occurs by efflux of time without a gubernatorial order, the President of Pakistan is empowered to announce the date after consulting the Election Commission. The Court directed the Election Commission to propose compliant dates, and declared it the constitutional duty of both the Federal and Provincial Governments to provide all necessary assistance and facilities to the Commission.

  Questions settled

  • Who has the constitutional responsibility to appoint the date for a general election to a Provincial Assembly when it is dissolved by an order of the Governor?
  • Who is authorized to appoint the election date for a Provincial Assembly when the assembly dissolves by efflux of time without an order of the Governor?
  • What are the constitutional duties of the Federal and Provincial Governments regarding the facilitation of general elections by the Election Commission?
  • Can the Supreme Court exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution when the same constitutional issues are pending before the Provincial High Courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Islamabad High Court Bar Association Islamabad through its President Muhammad Shain Shaheen, Asc Islamabad, Muhammad Sibtain Khan and Others vs Election Commission of Pakistan through the Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad and Others2023 SCP 68 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-23
  suo motu jurisdictiongeneral electionsdissolution of provincial assemblyconstitutional interpretationjudicial restraintbench reconstitutionelection date appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter involves two Constitution Petitions and a suo motu assumption of jurisdiction concerning the failure of provincial governors to announce dates for general elections to the dissolved Provincial Assemblies of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa within the mandatory ninety-day period under the Constitution. The core legal questions revolved around the constitutional authority to appoint election dates, the propriety of invoking suo motu jurisdiction while related matters remained pending before various High Courts, and the legality of the assembly dissolutions. Multiple judges recorded dissenting or separate notes expressing reservations regarding the invocation of suo motu jurisdiction, the composition of the bench, and the appropriateness of bypassing High Courts where similar issues were actively under adjudication. Ultimately, the bench referred the matter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan for reconstitution of the bench.

  Questions settled

  • Who has the constitutional responsibility and authority for appointing the date for the holding of a general election to a Provincial Assembly upon its dissolution?
  • Whether the extraordinary original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution should be exercised when identical matters are already pending adjudication before the High Courts?
  • Whether the power of a Chief Minister to advise the dissolution of a Provincial Assembly is absolute or requires a valid constitutional reason?
  • If the advice of a Chief Minister to dissolve an assembly is found constitutionally invalid, can the dissolved provincial assembly be restored?
  Read full judgment →
• Islamabad High Court Bar Association Islamabad through its President Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, Asc Islamabad vs Election Commission of Pakistan through the Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad and others2023 SCP 169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-28
  dissolution of provincial assemblygeneral electionselection date appointmentSection 57(1) Elections Actconstitutional timeframe 90 daysPresidential discretionArticle 184(3) maintainabilityGovernor's powers
  Summary & questions settled

  Original constitutional petitions and suo motu proceedings under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 concerning the constitutional responsibility to appoint the election date following the early dissolution of the Provincial Assemblies of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The core issues were which constitutional authority possesses the power to appoint the general election date under various modes of dissolution, whether the President acts on advice under Section 57(1) of the Elections Act 2017, and the maintainability of Article 184(3) petitions when related matters are pending in High Courts. The Supreme Court (by a 3:2 majority) held that holding elections within ninety days under Article 224(2) is a mandatory constitutional imperative. Where a Provincial Assembly is dissolved by an order of the Governor (Article 112(1) or (2)), the Governor must appoint the election date under Article 105(3)(a). Where dissolution occurs by efflux of time without an order (Article 112(1) after 48 hours or Article 107), the President is the competent authority under Section 57(1) of the Elections Act 2017, acting in his independent discretion without being bound by the Prime Minister's advice under Article 48(1).

  Questions settled

  • Who possesses the constitutional responsibility and authority to appoint the date for holding a general election to a Provincial Assembly when it dissolves by an order of the Governor versus when it dissolves by efflux of time without an order?
  • Is the President of Pakistan bound to act on the advice of the Prime Minister when announcing the date of general elections under Section 57(1) of the Elections Act 2017?
  • Does the pendency of identical legal issues before High Courts under Article 199 bar the Supreme Court from exercising its original constitutional jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution where strict constitutional deadlines for general elections are at stake?
  • How is the split ratio and final outcome of a Supreme Court decision determined when a larger bench is judicially referred to the Chief Justice and reconstituted into a smaller bench?
  Read full judgment →
• Islamabad Electric Supply Company vs National Industrial Relations2023 IHC 194, 2024 PCRLJ 944, 2024 PLC 1 · Islamabad High Court
  permanent workmantemporary workmanregularization of servicegrievance petitionNational Industrial Relations Commissionstanding ordersindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arises from an employer's challenge to concurrent orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission holding that a casual worker had attained the status of a permanent workman. The core legal questions involved whether a worker engaged on a temporary basis can be classified as a permanent workman based on the nature of the work performed, whether a grievance petition filed before the expiry of fifteen days from a grievance notice is maintainable, and whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has the power to order regularization. The court held that the nature of work—rather than the nomenclature in the appointment letter or artificial breaks—determines whether an employee is a permanent workman, and that the National Industrial Relations Commission cannot order regularization of service but can enforce statutory rights and privileges of permanent workmen. The court established that beneficial labor legislation cannot be overridden by executive bans on recruitment, and that a grievance petition filed prematurely is not fatally flawed where the employer demonstrates a persistent denial of statutory rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does the nature of the work or the designation in the appointment letter determine whether an employee is a permanent workman?
  • Can the National Industrial Relations Commission order the regularization of a workman's services?
  • Is a grievance petition rendered non-maintainable if it is filed before the expiry of fifteen days from the issuance of the grievance notice?
  • Can an executive ban on recruitment override the statutory rights and privileges granted to permanent workmen under labor laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Islamabad Cooperative Housing Society, Islamabad through its Secretary2023 IHC 100 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-08-15Read full judgment →
• Islamabad Capital Territory, Private Educational Institutions Regulatory2023 IHC 40 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Islam Wali vs The State2023 PHC 30 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-15Read full judgment →
• Islam Shah and another vs The State2023 MLD 1532 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-03
  narcotic smugglingchain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtcriminal appealsafe transmissionrecovery evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court (Control of Narcotic Substances), which convicted the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession and smuggling of 80 kilograms of hashish. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the recovery beyond reasonable doubt and whether the chain of custody for the narcotic samples was maintained. Upon review, the Sindh High Court identified material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the number of parcels recovered and the procedure for sealing the contraband. Furthermore, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and safe transmission of the samples to the chemical examiner, as the individuals responsible for handling the property were not examined. Consequently, the Court held that the chemical examiner's report was unreliable, creating a fatal gap in the prosecution's case. The Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the chain of custody, and acquitted the appellants by extending them the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction in the number of sealed parcels recovered by police invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the failure to examine the official responsible for transporting narcotic samples to the chemical examiner fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Must the prosecution prove the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotic samples to rely on a chemical examiner's report for conviction?
  • Can an accused be convicted for narcotics possession if the chain of custody of the samples is broken?
  Read full judgment →
• Ishtiaque Ali s/o Muhammad Yousif Memon vs The State2023 SHC 469, 2025 PCRLJ 977 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-04
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtchain of custodychemical analysisrecovery memomandatory public witnessesGutka and Manpuri Actevidentiary contradictions
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under the Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storage, Sale and Use of Gutka and Manpuri Act, 2019, for the alleged possession of Gutka. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given the alleged procedural lapses and evidentiary contradictions. The High Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed due to a broken chain of custody regarding the chemical samples, as the official responsible for their transmission was not examined. Furthermore, the court identified material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the preparation of the recovery memo and the handwriting of the complainant. Additionally, the court noted a failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as no independent public witnesses were associated with the recovery despite the public nature of the location. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, ruling that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt, as the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in sending samples for chemical analysis, coupled with a failure to examine the person responsible for their transmission, break the chain of custody?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when there are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the preparation of the recovery memo?
  • Does the failure to associate independent public witnesses in a recovery made from a public place violate the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ishtiaq Saleem vs Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah (deceased) through L.Rs & others2023 LHC 2369 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-28Read full judgment →
• Ishrat Bano etc. vs Fateh Muhammad2023 LHC 736 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-09Read full judgment →
• Ishaq Khan vs Rubina Asif2023 PHC 64 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-15Read full judgment →
• Ishaq Khan vs Rabina Asif2023 YLR 1743 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-15Read full judgment →
• Irum Ijaz vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Director General, Food Safety and Halal Food Authority and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1548 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-08
  eligibility criteriajudicial reviewappointing authority discretionservice mattereducational qualificationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a writ to compel the respondents to consider her for the post of Food Safety Officer (BPS-16). The petitioner, holding an M.Sc (Hons) in Human Nutrition, argued that her degree was equivalent to or higher than the required qualification stipulated in the advertisement, and thus, her exclusion was discriminatory. The core legal question was whether the High Court should interfere with the eligibility criteria set by an appointing authority when a candidate possesses a degree they claim is equivalent to the prescribed qualification. The Court held that the determination of eligibility and fitness for a particular post falls within the exclusive domain of the appointing authority. It emphasized that courts should not interfere with criteria properly laid down by competent authorities unless such criteria are contrary to law or discriminatory. Finding that the petitioner lacked the specific required qualification or the necessary additional diploma, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the judiciary lacks the mandate to substitute its judgment for the specialized requirements established by the department.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the mandate to interfere with the eligibility criteria set by an appointing authority for a specific post?
  • Is the determination of fitness and eligibility for a public post the exclusive domain of the appointing authority?
  • Can a candidate claim eligibility for a post based on a degree they assert is equivalent to the prescribed qualification despite not meeting the specific criteria?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ahmed vs The State2023 MLD 390 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-22
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseabscondencedelay in trialsenior citizen bailcovid-19 prison release
  Summary & questions settled

  This is the fourth post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Irshad Ahmed, facing trial in crime No.415 of 2013 registered under sections 324, 337-D, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Mehmoodabad, Karachi. The bail was sought primarily on three grounds: the applicant being a senior citizen, risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, and delay in the conclusion of the trial. The Sindh High Court evaluated these grounds and held that the offences alleged fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making the COVID-19 related policy guidelines inapplicable to such major offences. Furthermore, the court observed that the applicant remained a fugitive from law for over three years, and the delay in the trial was partly attributable to delaying tactics adopted by the defense, including filing applications under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court reiterated that old age, without proof of sickness or infirmity, is not a statutory ground for bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused charged with an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is entitled to bail on the ground of COVID-19 risks?
  • Does unexplained noticeable abscondence of an accused deprive him of normal rights granted by procedural and substantive law in bail matters?
  • Can bail be claimed on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of a trial when the delay is partly designed or contributed to by the defense?
  • Is old age alone, in the absence of sickness or infirmity, a sufficient ground for the grant of bail in heinous offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ahmed vs Shaukat Hussain Kiyani, Etc.2023 LHC 5158, 2024 MLD 334 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-10Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ahmed Memon son of Muhammad Haroon vs The State2023 SHC 190 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-20
  criminal acquittal appealpresumption of innocencedelay in FIRappellate interferenceperverse judgmentappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the complainant, Irshad Ahmed Memon, challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge/Model Criminal Trial Court, Thatta, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 302, 392, 365, 511, 114, 337-H(2), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence. The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the trial court correctly identified significant weaknesses in the prosecution's case, specifically an unexplained four-day delay in lodging the FIR and material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The Court held that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is extremely narrow, as the presumption of innocence is doubled once an accused is acquitted. The appellate court will only interfere if the trial court’s judgment is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or suffering from grave misreading of evidence, which was not established in this case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute sufficient grounds to cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Under what circumstances should an appellate court interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfanullah vs The State and 2 others2023 YLR 868 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-10
  dying declarationcircumstantial evidencecall data recordsuppression of factsqatl-e-amdmurder referencepost-mortemprivate defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Bannu, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death as Qisas, along with convictions under section 15-AA and section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value and sufficiency of a dying declaration, the necessity of independent corroboration, the reliability of circumstantial evidence including Call Data Records, and the legal implications of the suppression of real facts by both parties regarding the exact place and mode of the incident. The Peshawar High Court held that while the dying declaration and circumstantial evidence established the appellant's involvement in the shooting beyond reasonable doubt, the suppression of material facts by both sides created an atmosphere of uncertainty regarding the immediate genesis of the conflict, making a conviction under section 302(a) unsustainable. Consequently, the High Court partially allowed the appeal, set aside the death sentence under section 302(a), converted the conviction to section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentenced the appellant to fifteen years rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the ancillary convictions, compensation, and benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principles laid down include the rule that a dying declaration is a weak kind of evidence requiring independent corroboration from reliable sources, and that the suppression of true facts by parties can warrant a reduction of sentence under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a dying declaration in criminal trials and does it require independent corroboration for a conviction?
  • Whether circumstantial evidence and a Call Data Record can be used to corroborate a dying declaration in the absence of eye-witnesses?
  • Can a conviction under section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when both parties suppress the true facts regarding the genesis of the incident?
  • Whether the suppression of real facts by both sides justifies converting a murder conviction from section 302(a) to section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan vs Adnan Khan and another2023 PHC 438 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-09Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ullah vs The State etc2023 PHC 602, 2024 PCRLJ 1642 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-10
  qatl-i-amdcapital chargeappreciation of evidenceocular evidencerecovery of weaponcall data recordcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentences of the appellants for the qatl-i-amd of the deceased. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when relying on the testimony of a single alleged eyewitness and recovery evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, as the eyewitness testimony was inconsistent, uncorroborated by independent witnesses, and contradicted by the complainant's own account. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was found to be procedurally flawed and ineffective, and the call data record was deemed insufficient without audio transcripts. The Court emphasized that in capital cases, the prosecution must lead unimpeachable evidence of the first degree. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the connected appeals and revision petitions as infructuous, establishing the principle that conviction on a capital charge cannot be sustained where ocular accounts are unreliable, recoveries are ineffective, and the prosecution's case suffers from irreparable dents.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for a capital charge be sustained solely on the testimony of an eyewitness whose account is inconsistent and uncorroborated?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon effective evidence if it was not conducted in compliance with the requirements for search and discovery?
  • Does the production of call data record (CDR) without audio transcripts or verification of the callers constitute conclusive evidence of guilt?
  • What is the standard of proof required for the prosecution to sustain a conviction in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ullah vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Higher Education, Islamabad and others2023 PLC (C.S) 866 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-10
  writ petitionstatutory bodyservice rulestermination of servicenatural justicemaster and servantreinstatementconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the removal of the petitioner from the post of Manager (Admin and Finance) in the respondent-University. The core legal questions involved were whether the respondent-University is a statutory body amenable to writ jurisdiction, whether its service rules possess statutory status, and whether a confirmed employee can be removed from service without holding regular disciplinary proceedings when allegations of unsatisfactory performance or misconduct are involved. The Peshawar High Court held that the respondent-University, created under its own Ordinance with governance structures including statutory rule-making powers, possesses a statutory status, and its rules approved by its Board of Trustees are statutory in nature. The Court further held that once an employee is confirmed, termination on the ground of unsatisfactory performance or allegations requires proper departmental proceedings adhering to the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the termination order was set-aside, and the petitioner was reinstated in service with liberty for the university to conduct fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences is a statutory body amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Do the service rules and regulations framed by the Board of Governors and approved by the Board of Trustees of the National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences possess statutory status?
  • Whether an employee whose services are confirmed can be removed from service on allegations of unsatisfactory performance without holding regular departmental proceedings and providing an opportunity of being heard?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Saleem vs Provincial Govenrment2023 PHC 40, 2024 MLD 1096 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
• Irfan Azam and others vs Mst. Rabia Rafique and others2023 PLD Supreme Court 273, 2023 PLJ SC 471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-27
  review petitionsubstitution of counselchange of advocateSupreme Court Rules 1980unavoidable circumstancesOrder XXVI Rule 6legal representation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan involved an application under Order XXVI Rule 6 read with Order XXXIII Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 seeking permission to file and argue a review petition through a newly engaged counsel instead of the original counsel who had argued the dismissed civil petition. The petitioners submitted a certificate from the previous counsel stating that the petitioners had lost confidence in him and sought to change representation. The Supreme Court dismissed the application and the accompanying review petition, holding that a party's loss of confidence in their advocate or a desire to change legal representation does not constitute a compelling or unavoidable circumstance justifying substitution of counsel at the review stage. The Court reiterated that special leave to engage a new advocate in review proceedings must be exercised judiciously and granted only under compelling, unavoidable conditions, as allowing free substitution of counsel at the review stage would undermine procedural rules, lead to endless litigation, and breach established professional practice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party's loss of confidence in their advocate constitutes a sufficient or compelling ground under Order XXVI Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 to allow substitution of counsel at the review stage?
  • Under what circumstances may the Supreme Court grant special leave to engage a new advocate to file and argue a review petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ahmed S/O Muhammad Hayat vs The State2023 SHC 542 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-11
  protective bailcriminal proceduresurrender before trial courtpre-arrest reliefbail application
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought protective bail in respect of crime registered under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sahil, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to protective bail pending surrender before the trial court, particularly given the contention of false implication and the existence of doubt in the FIR. The court held that without touching the merits of the case, the applicant was entitled to protective bail for a limited duration. The key principle laid down is that protective bail may be granted for a short, specified period to enable an accused to approach the competent trial court, subject to the furnishing of requisite surety, without examining the merits of the underlying criminal accusation.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to protective bail to enable surrender before the trial court?
  • Can protective bail be granted without touching the merits of the criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ahmad Chattha and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Energy (Power Division), Pak Secretariat, Islamabad and others2023 CLD 1064 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-02Read full judgment →
• Khushdil Khan Malik vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 LHC 5792, 2024 PLD Lahore 86 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-05Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Khan vs Mst. Shehnaz Bibi and another2023 YLR 1967 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-27
  Qatl-i-Amdtransferred malicecriminal appealsentence enhancementwitness credibilitySection 161 statementforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction for Qatl-i-Amd and attempted murder, while a connected criminal revision petition seeks enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question concerns the application of the doctrine of transferred malice where the appellant, intending to kill one individual during an altercation, accidentally killed another. The court held that the appellant is liable for Qatl-i-Amd under Section 301, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, affirming that an offender who intends to kill one person but kills another is guilty of murder. The court dismissed both the appeal and the revision petition, finding the prosecution's case consistent, supported by medico-legal evidence, and corroborated by the recovery of the weapon and forensic reports. Furthermore, the court established that minor omissions in witness statements, such as failing to name a witness in a Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 statement, do not invalidate testimony when the witness's presence is otherwise corroborated by site plans and inquest reports. The sentence of life imprisonment was deemed appropriate given the lack of specific motive against the deceased.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of transferred malice under Section 301, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply when an offender intends to kill one person but accidentally kills another?
  • Does the omission of a witness's name in a statement recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 necessarily invalidate their testimony if their presence is corroborated by other evidence?
  • Is a conviction for Qatl-i-Amd sustainable when the prosecution proves the accused intended to kill a different person but killed the deceased instead?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Ansari vs The State2023 LHC 4322, 2024 MLD 846 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-27
  unsound mindinsanitypostponement of appealfair trialschizoaffective disordercriminal appealmedical board
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and sentencing of the appellant under sections 7(a), 7(b), and 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant relapsed into a mental illness, and a medical board certified him as suffering from schizoaffective disorder and unfit to face legal proceedings. The core legal question was whether an appellate court must postpone the hearing of a criminal appeal or a death reference when the convict is of unsound mind, given that the statutory protections in sections 464 and 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 explicitly apply only to inquiries and trials. The Lahore High Court held that although these statutory provisions do not explicitly govern appeals, the court possesses inherent power to postpone proceedings to prevent prejudice and ensure a fair hearing. The Court laid down the principle that an appellate court must postpone the hearing of an appeal or reference when the convict is mentally incapacitated, unless the case is such that the convict would be acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Do the protections and procedures under sections 464 and 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to criminal appeals?
  • Does an appellate court have the inherent power to postpone the hearing of an appeal if the appellant is found to be of unsound mind?
  • Can a criminal appeal or death reference be decided against a convict while they are mentally incapacitated and unable to instruct counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Intizar Hussain and another vs Amjad Hussain and another2023 PCRLJ 596 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-11-14
  exemption from personal appearancecriminal revisionprivate complaintincapabilityCode of Criminal Proceduretrial court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the trial court's order dismissing the petitioners' application for exemption from personal appearance in a private complaint under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners sought exemption under Section 540-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, citing credible threats of murderous assault by the complainants, supported by registered FIRs and medical evidence. The trial court had rejected the application, reasoning that the parties resided in the same vicinity and lacked sufficient evidence of threats. The High Court held that the trial court erred in its restrictive interpretation. The Court determined that the term "incapability" in Section 540-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is a term of wide import, encompassing circumstances beyond physical disability, and must be interpreted with benevolence rather than as a penal provision. Given the petitioners' counsel's undertaking to appear on every date, the Court found no prejudice to the trial proceedings. Consequently, the revision was allowed, granting the petitioners exemption from personal appearance, while affirming the trial court's residual power to mandate attendance if necessary for justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'incapability' in Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 extend beyond physical disability to include threats to life?
  • Should Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be interpreted as a penal provision or an enabling provision?
  • Can an accused be granted exemption from personal appearance in a criminal trial if their counsel provides an undertaking to appear on every date?
  Read full judgment →
• Interworld Communication Private Limited through Authorized2023 MLD 323 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-05Read full judgment →
• International Islamic University, Islamabad through its Rector and another2023 SCP 362, 2024 SCMR 472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-16
  Intra Court AppealmaintainabilityLaw Reforms OrdinanceSection 3(2) provisoright of appealoriginal orderBoard of Governors
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Petition was directed against a judgment of the Islamabad High Court which dismissed an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) filed by the International Islamic University, Islamabad as non-maintainable. The legal question concerned whether an ICA is maintainable by an employer under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, when the governing statute (Section 38 of the International Islamic University Ordinance, 1985) provides a right of appeal against the original order only to employees and not to the employer. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal. Reaffirming binding precedents of larger benches, the Court held that the applicability of the proviso to Section 3(2) depends on whether the applicable law provides for at least one appeal, revision, or review against the original order passed in the proceedings. The test is whether the statute prescribes such a remedy against the original order, regardless of whether that specific remedy of appeal is available to the party seeking to file the ICA.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Intra Court Appeal is maintainable under Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, if the applicable law provides for an appeal against the original order but such remedy is not available to the party filing the appeal?
  • Does the test under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, depend on the statutory provision of an appeal against the original order rather than the specific party's entitlement to invoke it?
  • Whether the existence of a statutory appeal or review under Section 38 of the International Islamic University Ordinance, 1985, bars an Intra Court Appeal under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• International Islamic University through its President and another vs President’s Secretariat (Public), Awain-e-Sadar and others2023 IHC 302 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• International Brands Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2023 SHC 226, 2024 PTD 49 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
• Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan through Secretary and 22023 PLD Sindh 328 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-11Read full judgment →
• Inspector General of Police, Azad Government of The State of Jammu And Kashmir and 3 others vs Mujtaba Ahmed Khan, Constable No. 1167, Presently Reserved Police Headquarter Muzaffarabad and 8 others2023 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 159 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  service tribunaljurisdiction of high courtterms and conditions of servicecivil servantwrit petitionretrospective adjustment
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court accepting a writ petition filed by police constables seeking permanent adjustment and service benefits with retrospective effect from the date of a government notification. The core legal question was whether the High Court had jurisdiction under its writ jurisdiction to determine matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, specifically salary and retrospective benefits, in light of the constitutional bar excluding the High Court's jurisdiction in matters falling within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that matters concerning terms and conditions of service, including salary, emoluments, and retrospective benefits of civil servants, exclusively fall within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Section 47 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, thereby excluding the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
  • Whether disputes concerning the salary, emoluments, and retrospective service benefits of civil servants exclusively fall within the domain of the Service Tribunal?
  • Can a civil servant approach the High Court for a declaration or direction regarding service matters when such matters are barred under constitutional provisions relating to the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Inshaullah vs The State etc2023 PHC 185, 2024 YLR 1213 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-05Read full judgment →
• Injum Aqeel vs Latif Muhammad Chaudhry, etc2023 SCP 203, 2023 PLJ SC 656, 2023 SCMR 1361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-18
  arbitration awardrule of courtex-parte awardarbitrator misconductlegal misconductsetting aside awardreappraisal of evidencespecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil Petitions for leave to appeal were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the consolidated judgment of the Islamabad High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's Regular First Appeals and upheld the trial court's order making an ex-parte arbitration award the rule of court. The core legal questions pertained to the scope of judicial interference under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the circumstances under which an arbitrator can proceed ex-parte, and what constitutes 'legal misconduct' or 'misconduct of proceedings'. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and refused leave to appeal, holding that the arbitrator properly initiated ex-parte proceedings after the petitioner repeatedly failed to appear despite notice and service of the claim. The Court emphasized that an arbitrator is the final judge of fact and law and a court examining objections does not sit in appeal or reappraise evidence. An award can only be set aside if there is a patent error apparent on its face or established misconduct causing a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an arbitrator validly initiate ex-parte proceedings and render an ex-parte award under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • What constitutes 'legal misconduct' or 'misconduct of the proceedings' by an arbitrator under Section 30(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Can a court hearing objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 re-examine or reappraise the evidence considered by the arbitrator?
  • Is an erroneous finding of fact or law by an arbitrator sufficient ground to set aside an arbitration award in the absence of an error apparent on the face of the award?
  Read full judgment →
• Independent and Transparent Investigation into the Murder of Renowned Journalist, Mr. Arshad Sharif in Kenya vs Suo Moto Case2023 SCP 5 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-05
  suo motuinvestigationmutual legal assistancecriminal investigationinternational cooperationArshad Sharif case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter pertains to a suo motu case initiated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the investigation into the murder of journalist Arshad Sharif in Kenya. The Court reviewed a progress report submitted by the Special Joint Investigation Team (SJIT) concerning its investigative activities since its constitution in December 2022. The proceedings focused on the status of international cooperation, specifically the issuance of Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) requests by the Federal Government to authorities in the United Arab Emirates and Kenya. The Court noted that while the SJIT has conducted preliminary investigative work domestically, including the examination of 41 witnesses, the resolution of the case depends on evidence located abroad. The Court acknowledged the Federal Government's provision of funds and the Foreign Office's cooperation in facilitating the investigation. The Court held that the investigation must proceed upon the receipt of responses to the MLA requests. Consequently, the Court granted the SJIT additional time to pursue these international inquiries and directed the matter to be relisted for further review in February 2023.

  Questions settled

  • What is the current status of the investigation into the murder of Arshad Sharif as reported by the Special Joint Investigation Team?
  • Has the Federal Government taken the necessary steps to facilitate international investigation in the Arshad Sharif murder case?
  • What is the procedural requirement for the Special Joint Investigation Team to commence investigation in foreign jurisdictions?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah Lashari vs Commissioner Larkana and Others2023 SHC 60, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 460 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-08
  regularization of servicedaily-wage employeescontingent paid staffconstitutional jurisdictionbinding precedentexpired contracts
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions were brought before the Sindh High Court seeking regularization of service by petitioners who had been initially appointed as Junior Clerk and Naib Qasid on a daily-wage or contingent-paid basis with express terms that their service could be discontinued at any time and would not qualify for regular appointment. Their services were subsequently discontinued and they were not in service when filing the petitions, though they claimed entitlement to regularization based on a precedent concerning a similarly placed employee. The core legal question was whether daily-wage or contract employees whose services had been discontinued can claim regularization or invoke the principle of parity in the absence of a governing statute or executive policy. The Court held that daily-wagers and contract employees have no vested right to regularization, that continuity of service is a pre-condition, and that regularization requires statutory backing or an executive policy. Furthermore, older precedents granting relief to similarly placed employees are no longer binding in view of later authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court under Article 189 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether daily-wage or contingent employees have a vested right to regularization of service?
  • Is continuity in service a pre-condition to seeking regularization?
  • Can the High Court issue a writ for regularization in the absence of an executive policy or statute permitting the same?
  • Does the principle of similarly placed employees apply to grant regularization when previous judgments run counter to settled law of the Supreme Court under Article 189 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayat Khan son of Khan Shahzada resident of Godar Tehsil Adenzai, D_15aa3a672023 PHC 32 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Inam Shah vs Saddiq Jan (daughter)2023 YLR 935 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-18Read full judgment →
• In the matter of vs In the matter of : The Chancellor Masters and Scholars2023 SHC 96 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• In the matter of vs In the matter of The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford, Oxford University Press Pakistan (SMC-Private) Limited2023 SHC 104 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• In the matter of vs In the matter of G. A. Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd.,Gam Corp2023 SHC 98 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Imtiaz Hussain vs District Judge etc2023 LHC 6165 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-13Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ali vs Muhammad Sadiq2023 LHC 1621 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ali Khan vs The State through Advocate-General, Bannu Bench2023 PCRLJ 1331 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-19
  narcoticssafe custodychain of custodybenefit of the doubtcriminal appealrecoveryForensic Science Laboratory
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the trial court under section 9-D of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019 for the alleged possession and smuggling of charas. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered narcotics and representative samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and whether material contradictions in police evidence warranted extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody, citing the non-production of relevant registers and failure to examine key officials involved in transporting the samples, which rendered the chemical examiner's report unreliable. The court established that any break or gap in the chain of custody vitiates the prosecution's case, and a single reasonable doubt arising from the evidence entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal consequence of a break or gap in the chain of custody of narcotic samples sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove safe custody and safe transmission of narcotics render the chemical examiner's report unreliable?
  • Is a single reasonable doubt arising from the prosecution's evidence sufficient for the acquittal of an accused person?
  • Whether material contradictions in the statements of police witnesses regarding the mode and manner of recovery can destroy the foundation of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Alam vs The News2023 PLC 248 · Implementation Tribunal For Newspaper Employees · 2023-08-29
  newspaper employeesrecovery of salaryex-parte proceedingsjurisdiction of ITNEelectronic mediaPEMRAstriking off defense
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed by a journalist against a media group for the recovery of unpaid salary and arrears arising from an integrated employment contract covering both print and electronic media outlets. The core legal questions concerned the Tribunal's jurisdiction over claims involving electronic media employees and the consequences of the respondent's failure to contest the petitioner's claims. The Tribunal held that the claim against the print media establishment was established, as the respondent failed to file a reply or statement of accounts despite multiple opportunities, leading to the striking off of their defense and an ex-parte judgment. Conversely, the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction over the electronic media claim, directing the petitioner to seek remedy before the PEMRA Council of Complaints. The key principle laid down is that where a respondent fails to rebut or dispute a claim for arrears despite sufficient opportunity, the claim is deemed admitted. Furthermore, the Tribunal's jurisdiction is strictly confined to newspaper employees under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, excluding electronic media employees governed by the PEMRA framework.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees have jurisdiction to adjudicate salary disputes involving electronic media employees?
  • What is the legal consequence of a respondent's failure to file a reply or statement of accounts despite multiple opportunities granted by the Tribunal?
  • Can a claim for unpaid salary be deemed admitted if the respondent fails to dispute or rebut the calculations provided by the petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ahmad vs Muhammad Ashraf (deceased) through L.Rs. and others2023 YLR 2603 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-03Read full judgment →
• Imran Qadeer vs Federation of Pakistan, Federal Tax Ombudsman, M/s2023 SHC 1062, PTCL 2024 CL. 167, 2024 PTD 1163 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-10
  Federal Tax Ombudsmanaudi alteram partemnatural justicedue processmaladministrationconstitutional petitionservice mattersright to fair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) which contained adverse findings against the Petitioner, an Additional Commissioner of the Federal Board of Revenue, without providing him a prior notice or opportunity of hearing. The core legal question was whether the FTO possesses the authority to record adverse observations against a public official without adhering to the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard. The Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable as it violated the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem. The Court clarified that Section 10(4) of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, mandates the issuance of notice to the person alleged to have committed maladministration. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Section 15 of the Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, does not dispense with the necessity of notice to the affected individual. Consequently, the Court set aside the adverse findings, affirming that administrative authorities must comply with due process requirements under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Tax Ombudsman record adverse findings against a public official without issuing a prior notice or providing an opportunity of hearing?
  • Does Section 15 of the Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, dispense with the requirement of issuing notice to an individual against whom adverse findings are contemplated?
  • Is the principle of audi alteram partem applicable to non-judicial proceedings conducted by the Federal Tax Ombudsman?
  • Does the Federal Tax Ombudsman have the jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary recommendations against a tax officer without following the procedure prescribed in the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Mustafa vs Government of Punjab, etc2023 LHC 6047, 2024 PLJ Lahore 63, 2024 PCRLJ 1487 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-21
  sentence remissionretrospective operationprospective legislationvested rightsnarcotics controlconstitutional petitioncriminal sentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199(1)(ii) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by a convict sentenced under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner challenged the authorities' refusal to grant him sentence remissions, citing the insertion of Section 9(A)(1) via the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022, which prohibits such remissions. The core legal question was whether this amendment applies retrospectively to a convict whose arrest, indictment, and conviction occurred prior to the amendment's promulgation. The Lahore High Court held that the amendment is prospective in nature and lacks explicit legislative intent for retrospective application. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner’s vested right to earn remissions, which accrued under the law existing at the time of his arrest and trial, could not be divested by subsequent legislation. The Court affirmed that amendments cannot nullify rights that have already crystallized, directing the authorities to grant the petitioner the remissions to which he is entitled under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 9(A)(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022, apply retrospectively to convicts sentenced before its promulgation?
  • Can a statutory amendment deprive a convict of the right to earn remissions that accrued under the law existing at the time of their arrest and trial?
  • Is the provision prohibiting remissions in the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022, prospective or retrospective in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Mehmood vs The State and another2023 SCMR 795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-13
  murdercapital punishmentocular evidencejudicial confessionindependent witnessesdowry recoverypremeditationmedical evidenceprompt FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a double murder conviction where the appellant was sentenced to death for killing his former wife’s father and uncle. The incident occurred when the complainant party, accompanied by court bailiffs, arrived at the appellant's residence to recover dowry articles pursuant to a family court decree. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular evidence from related and independent witnesses, the effect of minor discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, and the validity of a judicial confession. The Supreme Court maintained the conviction and death sentence, holding that the ocular account provided by the complainant and independent court bailiffs was consistent, straightforward, and confidence-inspiring. The Court observed that prompt lodging of the FIR excluded the possibility of deliberation. It further ruled that where ocular evidence is trustworthy, it prevails over medical evidence, and minor discrepancies do not negate direct testimony. Finding evidence of premeditation as the appellant was armed in anticipation of the visit, the Court declined to treat the incident as a 'spur of the moment' occurrence and dismissed the appeal.

  Read full judgment →
• Imran Mehmood vs State and anotherPLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 205, 2023 PSC (Crl.) 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murderocular evidencejudicial confessionpremeditationrelated witnessesmedical evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his former wife's father and uncle, following a dispute over dowry articles. The core legal questions addressed were the reliability of ocular testimony from related witnesses, the impact of minor discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, the validity of a judicial confession, and whether the crime was premeditated or committed on the spur of the moment. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent, confidence-inspiring ocular accounts from both related and independent witnesses, which were corroborated by medical evidence and forensic reports. The Court affirmed that minor discrepancies in testimony do not invalidate the prosecution's case if the evidence has a 'ring of truth.' Furthermore, the Court upheld the judicial confession, noting the appellant failed to prove coercion. The key principles laid down are that related witnesses are credible if their presence is natural; medical evidence is corroborative rather than primary; and premeditation is established where an accused is armed in anticipation of a known confrontation, precluding leniency in sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Can a judicial confession be discarded if the accused later claims it was extracted by force without providing evidence of such coercion?
  • Does the relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is medical evidence superior to ocular testimony in criminal trials?
  • Does the presence of an accused armed with a weapon at a known meeting point constitute evidence of premeditation?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Khan vs Malik Amanullah Khan, President Cantonment Board, Malir, Election Tribunal, Malir Cantonment, Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad2023 SHC 150, 2024 PLD Sindh 66 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-08Read full judgment →
• Imran Khan son of Jamal Nasir @ Jamal Khan vs The State2023 SHC 836 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-07Read full judgment →
• Imran Khan Niazi vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2023 LHC 4120 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-17Read full judgment →
• Imran Khan Niazi vs District Election Commissioner, Islamabad & Another2023 IHC 158 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-07
  non-bailable warrantsissuance of processprocuring attendanceconstitutional petitionframing of chargepersistent non-appearance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by a trial court issuing non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioner in a complaint case under the Elections Act, 2017, following persistent non-appearance. The core legal question concerned the scope and procedure of issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether non-bailable warrants were lawfully issued to secure attendance. The Islamabad High Court held that the trial court adopted the correct path by issuing non-bailable warrants due to the petitioner's continuous failure to appear personally for framing of the charge. The court noted that general security threats affecting the country do not justify halting judicial proceedings or excusing personal attendance. However, to meet the ends of justice and prevent immediate proclamation proceedings, the court suspended the non-bailable warrants until a specific date, directing the petitioner to appear personally before the trial court. The key principle laid down is that where an accused persistently avoids appearance, a court may issue warrants to procure attendance, and the accused must either seek pre-arrest bail or appear to execute bonds as outlined in landmark apex court jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • What is the primary purpose of issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can general security threats serve as a valid legal ground for an accused to continuously evade personal appearance before a trial court?
  • What are the available legal remedies for an accused against whom bailable or non-bailable warrants have been issued to procure attendance?
  • Does the issuance of a process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, equate to a finding of reasonable grounds of guilt under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Hameed etc. vs The State etc.2023 LHC 4565, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 1019 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-10
  pre-arrest bailcontinuing offenceQadianireligious feelingsarchitectural designmens reaOrdinance XX of 1984
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application regarding FIR No. 699/2022, registered under sections 298-B and 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, against petitioners managing a Qadiani place of worship. The core legal question was whether the continued existence of a worship place built in 1922, featuring architectural elements resembling a mosque, constitutes a "continuing offence" rendering the current caretakers criminally liable under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the doctrine of "continuing offence" is inapplicable to these facts. It reasoned that the structure predated the relevant penal provisions, and the prosecution failed to establish any new criminal act or mens rea by the petitioners. Consequently, the Court granted pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that a "continuing offence" requires a series of acts or omissions driven by a unique criminal intent that persists over time; it cannot be invoked to criminalize the mere existence of a pre-existing structure where no current criminal conduct or mens rea is demonstrated by the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of continuing offence apply to the maintenance of a worship place built before the enactment of the penal provisions prohibiting specific architectural features?
  • Can caretakers of a religious site be held criminally liable for the architectural design of a structure built decades prior to their management?
  • Is the presence of a minaret on a non-Muslim place of worship sufficient to establish a continuing offence under sections 298-B and 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran and others vs StatePLJ 2023 Cr.C. 232 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-28
  criminal appealmurder referenceqatl-i-amdmitigating circumstancesdeath sentence commutationocular accountfirst responderpolice rulesbenefit of doubtfirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants, Imran and Hasnain, for murder and attempted murder under Sections 302(b)/34 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing Imran to death and Hasnain to imprisonment for life, alongside compensation orders under Section 544-A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular account, the role and duties of a first responder under the Police Rules 1934, and the presence of mitigating circumstances for sentencing. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular and medical evidence, and that separate dispatch of injured persons or minor discrepancies did not vitiate the case. However, considering the failure to prove the motive and the fact that fatal injuries were attributed to multiple accused, the court altered the death sentence of Imran to imprisonment for life while maintaining the rest of the convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to prove motive constitutes a mitigating circumstance warranting the alteration of a death sentence to imprisonment for life under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What are the statutory and regulatory duties of a police officer acting as a first responder at a crime scene under the Police Rules 1934 and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the separate dispatch of injured witnesses to a hospital on private transport versus emergency services cast genuine doubt on the presence of eyewitnesses at the crime scene?
  • Whether minor discrepancies or statements against the record regarding the rough site plan can discredit confidence-inspiring ocular testimony in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran and another vs The State2023 YLR 2084 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-28
  qatl-i-amddeath sentence mitigationinjured witness testimonyfirst responder dutiespolice rulesmotive unprovencriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants, Imran and Hasnain, under sections 302(b)/34 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd and causing firearm injuries, resulting in a death sentence for Imran and life imprisonment for Hasnain, alongside compensation orders under section 544-A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular testimony of injured and eyewitnesses, the legal role and duties of a first responder under the Police Rules 1934, the effect of non-proof of motive, and the adequacy of circumstances to sustain capital punishment. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent and confidence-inspiring ocular accounts corroborated by medical evidence. However, because the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive and firearms were sent for forensic analysis only after the arrest of the accused, mitigating circumstances existed against the death penalty. The court therefore dismissed the appeals while altering Imran's death sentence to imprisonment for life and answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unproven motive in a murder case serves as a mitigating circumstance to alter a sentence of death to imprisonment for life?
  • What are the statutory and regulatory duties and functions of a police first responder at a crime scene under the Police Rules 1934 and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the separate dispatching of injured witnesses to a hospital cast doubt on the presence of eyewitnesses at the scene of the occurrence?
  • Whether the failure to record statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 through a first responder vitiates the subsequent police investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Amir and another vs Mst. Ismat Bibi and another2023 CLC 1059 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-17
  harassment at workplacedouble jeopardyombudsmanconcurrent proceedingscriminal prosecutiondepartmental proceedingscosts of litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging an interim order of the Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace, which dismissed their application for the rejection of a complaint filed under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. The core legal question was whether concurrent proceedings before the Ombudsman and a Criminal Court stemming from the same set of factual allegations violate the fundamental right against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that inquiry proceedings before the Ombudsman are not criminal in nature and carry penalties distinct from criminal convictions. The Court affirmed that civil/departmental inquiries and criminal prosecutions serve different purposes, involve different standards of proof, and can proceed simultaneously without constituting double jeopardy. Additionally, Section 12 of the 2010 Act provides that its provisions are in addition to other laws. Due to concealing the prior dismissal of an identical application, additional costs were imposed on the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether proceedings before the Ombudsman under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 violate Article 13 of the Constitution during the pendency of a criminal trial on similar allegations?
  • Do civil or departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings on the same factual cause of action constitute double jeopardy?
  • Can penalties imposed under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 co-exist with sentences passed by a Criminal Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ali vs The State etc.2023 LHC 6950, 2024 YLR 1868 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-12
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRchance witnessunnatural conductmedical evidence conflictweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302(b) PPC for the qatl-i-amd of his wife. The core legal questions involve the evaluation of delayed FIR registration, delayed post-mortem examination, the credibility of chance and belatedly introduced eye-witnesses exhibiting unnatural conduct, and the reliability of a weapon recovery after a significant time lapse. The Lahore High Court held that multiple infirmities in the prosecution case, including unexplained delays, lack of corroboration for eyewitness presence, unnatural silence during the attack, and a doubtful weapon recovery, rendered the prosecution evidence untrustworthy. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, laying down the principle that multiple cumulative circumstances creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem examination create a doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution story?
  • Can the testimony of eye-witnesses whose names were omitted from the FIR and introduced via a belated supplementary statement after two days be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Is the conduct of close relatives considered unnatural if they stand as silent spectators without intervening or attempting to rescue the victim from a non-firearm assault?
  • Does a delayed recovery of a blood-stained weapon and its belated submission to the forensic science agency render the recovery and forensic report doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahsan alias Sunny and others vs The State and others2023 YLR 1796 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-04
  kidnapping for ransomapprover testimonyidentification paradeappeal against acquittalrule of consistencyanti-terrorismbenefit of the doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal addresses multiple challenges arising from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court concerning charges of kidnapping for ransom. The core legal questions involve assessing the credibility of an approver's testimony, the necessity of an identification parade where the abductee was held captive for an extended period, the standard for reappraising evidence in convictions, and the strict parameters required to overturn an acquittal. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the convicted appellants based on corroborative testimonies of the complainant, the abductee, and the approver, while upholding the acquittal of another accused due to insufficient incriminating evidence, material improvements, and the double presumption of innocence. The key principles laid down include that holding an identification parade is not mandatory when the abductee has spent significant time in captivity with the perpetrators, and that appellate courts will not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings of the trial court are perverse, arbitrary, or suffer from grave misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether holding an identification parade is mandatory when an abductee has remained in captivity with the kidnappers for a prolonged period?
  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against a judgment of acquittal?
  • Does the uncorroborated testimony of an approver suffice for conviction if supported by material corroborative evidence from other witnesses?
  • Is delay in lodging the First Information Report fatal to the prosecution case in kidnapping for ransom matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi vs The State2023 SCP 398, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 91, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 154, 2024 SCMR · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-22
  post-arrest bailOfficial Secrets Actcypher telegramgenuine electionsfundamental rightsright to votefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions seeking leave to appeal against orders of the Islamabad High Court declining post-arrest bail to the petitioners in a case registered under the Official Secrets Act 1923 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the alleged communication and wrongful retention of a classified cypher telegram. The core legal questions concern whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the petitioners committed an offence under Section 5(3)(b) of the Official Secrets Act 1923 warranting continued incarceration, and whether the incarceration of political figures during an election period impacts the constitutional right of voters to genuine elections. The Supreme Court held that there was insufficient incriminating material at the tentative stage to establish that the information was communicated to the public in the interest of a foreign power or related to defense installations, and that the High Court exercised its discretion perversely in declining bail. The Court laid down that bail should be considered favorably as a rule during election periods to ensure genuine elections and protect the rights of voters, and that tentative assessment of record without deeper appraisal governs the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted during an election period to candidates and political figures to ensure genuine elections?
  • Are there reasonable grounds for believing the petitioners committed an offence under Section 5(3)(b) of the Official Secrets Act 1923 based on the material available at a tentative stage?
  • Does the incarceration of political leaders during elections violate the fundamental rights of citizens and voters under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • When can bail be granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi vs The State, etc.2023 IHC 150 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-27
  post-arrest bailofficial secretsquashing of FIRclassified documentconstitutional immunitycypher
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment of the Islamabad High Court addresses a petition seeking post-arrest bail and a constitutional petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under sections 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, while serving as Prime Minister, communicated and misused a classified diplomatic document (cypher) for political gain in a manner prejudicial to state security. The core legal questions involved the applicability of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 to civilians and former prime ministers, the validity of cognizance taken upon a government-authorized complaint, the scope of constitutional immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether grounds existed for post-arrest bail or quashment of the FIR. The court held that the Official Secrets Act applies universally to citizens, that the provisions of section 5 are disjunctive and prima facie attracted, that executive immunity does not extend to political speeches or criminal acts outside official duties, and that alternate remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a constitutional petition for quashment. Consequently, both the bail application and the quashing petition were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 apply to civilians and holders of public office or are restricted exclusively to members of the Armed Forces?
  • Does a former Prime Minister enjoy criminal immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 for statements made during political gatherings?
  • Whether the disclosure and alleged mishandling of a classified diplomatic cypher prima facie attract the penal provisions of section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923?
  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 is maintainable for the quashment of an FIR when an efficacious alternate remedy under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is available?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi vs The State and others2023 SCP 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-11
  arrest warrantcourt premisesaccess to justicefundamental rightsNational Accountability Bureaupolice custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a miscellaneous application converted into a criminal petition and appeal, challenging the arrest of the petitioner within the premises of the Islamabad High Court. The core legal question concerned the legality of executing an arrest warrant issued by the National Accountability Bureau within court precincts while the petitioner had surrendered for judicial relief. The Court held that the manner of execution of the arrest warrant was invalid and unlawful, violating the petitioner's right of access to justice and the sanctity of the court, thereby infringing fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The Court laid down the principle that executing arrest warrants within court premises after a litigant has surrendered for judicial relief violates fundamental rights relating to due process, security of person, and access to justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the execution of an arrest warrant within the premises of a court is lawful when the person has surrendered for judicial relief?
  • Does the arrest of an individual within court precincts violate the constitutional right of access to justice?
  • What constitutes an infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 4, 9, 10-A and 14 of the Constitution during the execution of an arrest warrant?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 CLC 239 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi vs District Election Commissioner, Islamabad2023 IHC 164 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-07-04
  criminal revisionstatement of assets and liabilitiescorrupt practiceelection commission of pakistanlimitation periodauthorization of complaintsupervisory jurisdictionremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad (West), which dismissed applications for the dismissal of a criminal complaint filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) against the petitioner for alleged corrupt practices regarding statements of assets and liabilities. The core legal questions revolved around whether the complaint was filed by a duly authorized person and whether it was barred by limitation under section 137(4) of the Elections Act, 2017. The Islamabad High Court held that the trial court dealt with the complex legal issues in a perfunctory and cursory manner with scanty reasons, failing to properly evaluate the questions of authorization and limitation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the trial court to decide the applications afresh with detailed reasons within seven days. The key principle laid down is that a trial court must judiciously and thoroughly examine substantial legal questions and provide reasoned decisions in compliance with the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution, rather than disposing of them in a slipshod manner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal complaint filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan under section 190(2) of the Elections Act, 2017 requires specific authorization by the Commission itself?
  • Whether the 120-day limitation period provided under section 137(4) of the Elections Act, 2017 for initiating criminal proceedings is mandatory or directory?
  • Whether a superior court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 should substitute its own findings or remand the case when the trial court has failed to address material legal issues?
  • Whether lack of proper authorization at the time of initiating criminal proceedings is fatal to the complaint or capable of subsequent ratification?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs The State through Attorney General Office, Islamabad & Another2023 IHC 148 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-26Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs The State etc.2023 IHC 166 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-02
  pre-arrest bailnon-appearance of accusedexemption from personal appearancebail dismissalcriminal revisionsinvoluntary absence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses multiple criminal revision petitions filed by Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi, impugning orders of trial courts that dismissed his pre-arrest bail applications due to his non-appearance. The petitioner was confined in jail serving a sentence following a conviction under the Elections Act, 2017, making his personal attendance before the bail courts impossible. The core legal question was whether trial courts can summarily dismiss pre-arrest bail applications solely due to the accused's absence when such absence is involuntary and due to imprisonment in another case. The Islamabad High Court held that where an accused's absence is not deliberate and is beyond their control, trial courts must liberally grant exemption applications and should not dismiss bail applications in absentia without deciding them on merits. The court set aside the dismissal orders, restored the bail applications to be deemed pending, and highlighted that the state's lack of intent to execute arrests should also be factored in by the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court decide a pre-arrest bail application in the absence of the accused?
  • Should trial courts liberally grant exemption from appearance when the accused's absence is due to confinement in another case?
  • Whether an application for pre-arrest bail ought to be dismissed solely on the ground of non-appearance without considering the merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2023 IHC 142 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-07-20Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2023 IHC 97 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-07-20Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Law2023 SCP 286, 2023 PLJ SC 665 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  National Accountability Ordinanceconstitutional petitionfundamental rightspecuniary jurisdictionaccountabilityseparation of powerslegislative competenceplea bargainevidentiary presumption
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution Petition challenged the vires of the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2022 and the National Accountability (Second Amendment) Act, 2022, which introduced significant changes to the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The petitioner contended that these amendments effectively decriminalized corruption by elected holders of public office, thereby violating Fundamental Rights under Articles 9, 14, 24, and 25 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the amendments, by creating blanket exemptions and raising the pecuniary jurisdiction to Rs. 500 million, rendered the National Accountability Bureau ineffective and left public property vulnerable to misappropriation without a forum for accountability. The Court declared the pecuniary threshold and exclusions ultra vires the Constitution regarding elected holders of public office, as they amounted to legislative judgment and encroachment upon judicial power. Furthermore, the Court restored evidentiary presumptions and struck down the proviso allowing accused persons to renege on plea bargains. The judgment affirms that legislative power cannot be used to absolve public office holders from accountability, as such immunity offends the constitutional guarantee of equality and the protection of public property.

  Questions settled

  • Does the increase of the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Accountability Bureau to Rs. 500 million for elected holders of public office violate the Constitution?
  • Can the legislature enact laws that effectively grant blanket immunity to elected holders of public office from accountability for corruption?
  • Does the omission of evidentiary presumptions in the National Accountability Ordinance violate fundamental rights by rendering the prosecution of corruption offences impossible?
  • Is a proviso to a statutory section valid if it nullifies the main section it qualifies?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2023 IHC 154 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-24Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 202, 2024 PLD Islamabad 155, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 126 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-19
  jail trialopen trialdue processintra-court appealOfficial Secrets Actjudicial independenceseparation of powersprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged a single-judge judgment upholding the trial of the appellant in jail for offences under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The core legal question concerned the legality of conducting a criminal trial in jail premises without a prior judicial order under Section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and without adhering to the procedure prescribed in Rule 3 of the Lahore High Court Rules. The Court held that the notifications issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice were without lawful authority, as they lacked the requisite judicial order and government sanction. The Court emphasized that the right to an open trial is a fundamental component of due process and a cornerstone of the judicial system. It held that while jail trials are permissible in exceptional circumstances, they require a judicial order passed by the presiding judge after hearing the parties, followed by government sanction. Executive notifications cannot bypass these procedural safeguards, nor can they retrospectively validate proceedings conducted in violation of the open trial principle. Consequently, the jail trial proceedings were declared vitiated.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal trial be conducted in jail premises without a prior judicial order under Section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the executive government have the authority to unilaterally designate a jail as the venue for a criminal trial without following the procedure prescribed in Rule 3 of the Lahore High Court Rules?
  • Can an executive notification provide retrospective validation for criminal proceedings conducted in violation of the open trial principle?
  • Is an intra-court appeal maintainable against a judgment passed under Article 199 of the Constitution where no statutory remedy of appeal, revision, or review was available at the time of the original order?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2023 LHC 1, 2025 YLR 271 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-05Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs District Election Commissioner, IslamabadPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 929 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-08-28
  suspension of sentenceshort sentencebail pending appealElections Act 2017jurisdictional defectscriminal procedurediscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the suspension of a three-year sentence awarded to the applicant following his conviction under the Elections Act 2017. The core legal question was whether the sentence should be suspended pending the final disposal of the appeal, given the applicant's contentions regarding jurisdictional defects, limitation bars, and procedural irregularities in the trial court's proceedings. The Court held that the sentence of three years constitutes a "short sentence," and in accordance with established judicial principles, the discretion to suspend such a sentence should generally be exercised in favor of the applicant. The Court declined to engage in a deep appreciation of the complex jurisdictional and merits-based arguments raised by the parties, holding that such matters are reserved for the final adjudication of the appeal. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, suspended the sentence, and ordered the applicant's release on bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds. The key principle established is that at the suspension of sentence stage, courts should avoid lengthy determinations on complex merits or jurisdictional issues.

  Questions settled

  • Is a three-year sentence considered a short sentence for the purpose of suspension of sentence pending appeal?
  • Should a court engage in a deep appreciation of jurisdictional and merits-based arguments during the hearing of an application for suspension of sentence?
  • Is the failure to implead the State as a party in an application for suspension of sentence fatal to the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs District Election Commissioner, Islamabad and another2023 SCP 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-08-23
  remand directionsex-parte proceedingssuspension of sentencedefence witnessesjurisdictional objectionsdue processElections Act 2017
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of the High Court remanding jurisdictional and maintainability objections for fresh consideration by the Trial Court. Despite the remand order, the Trial Court proceeded ex-parte in the absence of the petitioner and convicted him under the Elections Act, 2017. The core legal questions involved whether the Trial Court committed serious procedural errors by failing to decide the remanded jurisdictional objections afresh, relying instead on its previous set-aside orders, and by refusing the petitioner's request to produce defence witnesses. The Supreme Court observed that the Trial Court's decision prima facie defied the High Court's remand directions and raised serious concerns regarding procedural propriety and constitutional due process. However, noting that an appeal and an application for suspension of sentence were pending before the High Court, the Supreme Court deferred its decision out of respect for the High Court, maintaining that the High Court should address these issues first.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Trial Court defies a High Court's remand order when it reaffirms its earlier set-aside orders instead of deciding the remanded issues afresh?
  • Whether the Supreme Court should decide jurisdictional and procedural challenges to a conviction while a statutory appeal and suspension of sentence application are pending before the High Court?
  • Does turning down an accused's request to produce defence witnesses under Section 342 Cr.P.C. violate due process requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Abbas Bhatti vs Govt. of Punjab etc2023 LHC 2764 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-23Read full judgment →
• Imran @ Gullo S/O Bashir Ahmed vs The State2023 SHC 628 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-31Read full judgment →
• Imdad Ullah son of Sameen Jan vs The State etc2023 PHC 229, 2024 YLR 799 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-31Read full judgment →
• Imam Din vs P.O Sindh & Others2023 SHC 1174 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-20Read full judgment →
• Imam Bux Rind son of Dost Muhammad vs Sain Dad son of Haji Sobho2023 SHC 471 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-04Read full judgment →
• Ilyas Ahmad vs Additional District Judge, Sialkot and 7 others2023 CLC 138 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-03Read full judgment →
• Ikram-Ul-Hassan and others vs State through Additional Advocate2023 YLR 485 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-04-26Read full judgment →
• Ikhlaq Haider Chattha vs Caretaker Chief Minister Punjab & others2023 LHC 3356, 2023 PLJ Lahore 714 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-07Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ullah son of Bakht Nawab vs Shireen Zada & others2023 PHC 568, 2024 PCRLJ 1370 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-26
  acquittal appealbenefit of the doubtsolitary eyewitnessunnatural conductdelayed FIRmedical evidence contradictionwithholding best evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court in a murder case involving charges under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case rested primarily on the solitary statement of the complainant and alleged previous ill-will over a piece of land. The Peshawar High Court evaluated the evidence, noting severe contradictions regarding the distance between the complainant's house and the crime scene, the unnatural conduct of the eyewitnesses in failing to render first aid or report the matter promptly, an unexplained delay of over six hours in lodging the FIR, withholding of material witnesses, and inconsistencies between the ocular and medical evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial court's judgment of acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a solitary eyewitness whose presence at the crime scene is doubtful can form the basis of a conviction in a capital case?
  • Does an unexplained delay in reporting the crime to the police render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Whether withholding material eyewitnesses warrants an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt and grant acquittal to an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz ul Haq vs Mrs. Maroof Begum Ahmed & others2023 SCP 269, 2023 PLD Supreme Court 653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-08-16
  specific performancelimitation periodimpleadment of necessary partypower of attorneyagent liabilitydisclosed principalreadiness and willingnessfinancial capacity
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell an industrial plot executed by an attorney on behalf of a non-resident property owner. The plaintiff initially sued only the attorney and the Capital Development Authority, but later impleaded the property owner after the three-year limitation period prescribed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908 had elapsed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the High Court's decree dismissing the suit. The Court held that under Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the suit against the newly added property owner—a necessary party—was time-barred. Furthermore, under Section 230 of the Contract Act, 1872, an agent who contracts for a disclosed principal cannot be personally sued, making the suit unmaintainable against the attorney. The Court also held that the plaintiff failed to establish his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligations, as he failed to testify himself, examining instead an attorney with no personal knowledge, and produced no evidence of financial capacity to pay the balance consideration.

  Questions settled

  • From what point in time is a suit deemed to be instituted against a necessary party added after the initial filing under Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Can a suit for specific performance of a contract be maintained solely against an agent who executed the contract on behalf of a disclosed principal?
  • Can an attorney-in-fact who lacks personal knowledge of the contract negotiations testify in place of the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness for specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Khan vs The State & another2023 PHC 127, 2024 YLR 701 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-14Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Hussain alias Jajay Shah vs The State and another2023 LHC 5785, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 471 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-05
  narcotics controlrecovery memorandumhandwriting comparisonbenefit of doubtcriminal appealpolice raidacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chishtian, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the prosecution had proved the recovery of narcotics from the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, given that material case documents were written in the same hand and cast serious doubt on the occurrence of the alleged police raid. The court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case, observing that the identity of handwriting on the complaint, recovery memo, and site plan strongly indicated they were fabricated at the police station in a single sitting. The Lahore High Court laid down the principle that a court is empowered under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, to compare disputed handwriting with admitted writing with extreme care and caution to resolve controversies, and that a single reasonable doubt arising from flawed police proceedings entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court is empowered to compare disputed handwriting or signatures under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
  • Does the preparation of the complaint, recovery memo, and site plan in the same handwriting cast doubt on the genuineness of a police raid in a narcotics case?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trials?
  • Does a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in the mind of a prudent person entitle the accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Badshah vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Block, Constitution Avenue, Islamabad and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 694 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-12
  civil servicedismissal from servicejudicial reviewdoctrine of proportionalitymisconductPassports Actadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that upheld the petitioner's dismissal from civil service. The petitioner, a BPS-19 officer, was dismissed for unauthorized absence and for obtaining multiple passports under false pretenses, including misdeclaring his profession and traveling abroad without the required No Objection Certificate (NOC). Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner did not contest the findings of misconduct but sought to convert the dismissal into compulsory retirement, arguing the penalty was disproportionate. The core legal question was whether the administrative authority’s decision to impose dismissal was unreasonable or disproportionate under the doctrine of judicial review. The Supreme Court held that the punishment was proportionate and reasonable given the gravity of the misconduct, which involved deception and repeated violations of government travel regulations. Distinguishing this case from Sabir Iqbal, the Court affirmed that while judicial review permits examining administrative discretion, deterrent punishment is essential for gross misconduct to maintain institutional discipline. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the dismissal, finding no illegality or perversity in the Tribunal's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded by a competent authority in a disciplinary proceeding if the punishment is found to be proportionate?
  • Does the doctrine of proportionality allow for the conversion of a dismissal order into compulsory retirement for a civil servant guilty of gross misconduct?
  • What is the legal burden of proof regarding statements made in documents used to obtain a passport under the Passports Act 1974?
  • Is the possession of multiple passports by a civil servant without departmental permission considered gross misconduct justifying dismissal?
  Read full judgment →