Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Government of Balochistan through Secretary C&W Department and 22023 YLR 1344 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-20Read full judgment →
- Goharullah S/O Inayatullah vs The State Through Chairman NAB2023 SHC 236 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-21Read full judgment →
- Gohar Ali vs The State2023 YLR 1761 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Mardan, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the return of seized foreign currency. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who claimed ownership of seized Saudi Riyals, was entitled to their release on superdari despite failing to provide proof of authorized acquisition or legitimate source. The court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of ownership, as inquiries revealed the alleged sale transaction was groundless. Furthermore, the court emphasized that conducting a foreign currency business requires specific authorization from the State Bank of Pakistan under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947, which the petitioner lacked. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court affirmed that the freedom of trade under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is subject to lawful regulation. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, maintaining that the seized currency could not be released without proof of legitimate ownership and compliance with regulatory requirements.
Questions settled- Is a person entitled to the return of seized foreign currency on superdari if they cannot prove the currency was acquired through authorized sources?
- Does the right to freedom of trade under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 exempt a person from complying with regulatory requirements for foreign currency exchange?
- Is prior authorization from the State Bank of Pakistan mandatory for conducting a business involving foreign currency exchange?
- Gohar Ali Khan vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2023 SCP 397, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 288, 2024 PLJ SC 241, PLJ 2024 SC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan by the Chairman of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), seeking the intervention of the Supreme Court to ensure a level playing field for all political parties in the upcoming general elections. The petitioner alleged that PTI members faced harassment, arrests, and interference with the filing of nomination papers, and that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had failed to address these grievances. The core legal question concerned the ECP's constitutional obligation to ensure free, fair, and transparent elections. The Court disposed of the petition after the Attorney General and ECP representatives assured that all complaints would be addressed urgently and that the ECP would facilitate a level playing field. The Court held that the ECP bears a constitutional mandate under Articles 218(3) and 220 to conduct elections honestly and justly. The key principle laid down is that the ECP must proactively resolve electoral grievances to maintain public trust, ensuring that all political parties enjoy equal participation opportunities without coercion, thereby preserving the legitimacy of the democratic process.
Questions settled- Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have a constitutional duty to ensure a level playing field for all political parties during the election process?
- What is the scope of the Election Commission of Pakistan's responsibility under Article 218(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Are executive authorities constitutionally obligated to assist the Election Commission of Pakistan in the discharge of its electoral functions?
- Ghutam Mustafa Lund vs National Accountability Bureau through its2023 SCP 315, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged a High Court judgment upholding a final notice from the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) demanding an additional payment of Rs. 140.62 million, following an initial Voluntary Return (VR) agreement. The core legal question was whether an Accountability Court possesses the jurisdiction to direct the re-assessment or re-valuation of a Voluntary Return liability already approved by the Chairman NAB, and whether the Bureau can unilaterally enhance such liability. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court judgment. It held that the Accountability Court acted without jurisdiction in ordering the re-assessment of the VR liability, as the statute confers no such power upon it. Consequently, the subsequent demand based on that void order was unlawful. The Court established that Voluntary Return under Section 25(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, is a one-time voluntary facility dependent on the Chairman NAB's determination and the accused's offer; the Accountability Court has no role in supervising or directing these proceedings. Furthermore, when a foundational order is void, any superstructure built upon it is also void.
Questions settled- Does an Accountability Court have the jurisdiction to direct the re-assessment or re-valuation of a Voluntary Return liability already approved by the Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau?
- Can the National Accountability Bureau unilaterally enhance the value of a Voluntary Return liability after it has been formally approved by the competent authority?
- Is the Accountability Court empowered to supervise or direct proceedings related to a Voluntary Return under Section 25(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
- Ghulamali P. Allana vs Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse Sa & others2023 SHC 154 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-06Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Yaseen and another vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 264 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-07Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabir vs 2nd Adj Tando Allahyar & others Sindh High Court2023 PLJ Karachi 171 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabir and others vs Government of Pakistan through Chairman2023 PLJ Karachi 34 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-15Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabeer Lashari vs The State2023 SHC 1126, 2024 PCRLJ 847 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for murder, kidnapping, attempt to murder, and terrorism offences arising from an incident where multiple armed persons allegedly attacked a house, resulting in fatalities and injuries. The core legal question was whether the appellant's plea of alibi, supported by official documentary and travel records showing he was abroad in Saudi Arabia at the time of the offence, was sufficient to create reasonable doubt against the consistent ocular testimony of prosecution eyewitnesses. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the trial court erred by ignoring the exculpatory defense evidence and documentary proof of alibi. The court laid down the principle that the onus on an accused setting up an alibi is not to prove it affirmatively beyond doubt, but merely to produce sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable possibility of innocence, and that where official documentary evidence substantiates an alibi, the benefit of any resulting reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.
Questions settled- What is the extent of the burden of proof on an accused person who sets up a plea of alibi?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the trial court completely fails to consider exculpatory defense evidence and official travel records supporting an alibi?
- Does the heinous or brutal nature of an offence justify a court in disregarding established principles of evidence appreciation and the constitutional right to a fair trial?
- Ghulam Shabbir vs Mst. Tanzeela Nusrat etc.2023 LHC 4866, 2024 PLJ Lahore 82, 2023 CLC 2169 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabbir Shaikh vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2023 SHC 208 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the decision of the Chief Minister Sindh approving a summary that undid the regularization of the petitioner's service as a Legal Assistant (Second Capacity) in the Board of Revenue Sindh (BOR Sindh). The core legal question was whether a regularized civil servant's services can be abruptly terminated or de-notified through an administrative summary without adhering to the prescribed statutory disciplinary procedure, and whether temporary employees possess a vested right to regularization. The Sindh High Court held that while contract employees have no automatic right to regularization, once an employee's service has been regularized and they attain the status of a civil servant, their services cannot be dispensed with arbitrarily or on the administrative side without a regular inquiry. The court laid down the principle that the removal of a regularized civil servant must strictly follow the applicable efficiency and discipline rules, and public functionaries cannot bypass due process to undo past administrative decisions.
Questions settled- Whether temporary or contract employees have a vested right to claim regularization of their services?
- Can the regularization of a civil servant be undone through an administrative summary approved by the Chief Minister without a regular inquiry?
- Whether the services of a regularized civil servant can be dispensed with without resorting to the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1974?
- Does a public functionary's abuse of discretion violate the right to due process under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Ghulam Shabbir Kubar vs The State, Mst. Batool2023 SHC 361 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a challenge to orders passed by a Judicial Magistrate and a Sessions Judge regarding a Domestic Violence Petition filed under the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2013. The petitioner challenged the trial court's cognizance of the petition, arguing that the court failed to mandate counseling under Section 8 of the Act, lacked sufficient evidence, and failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Chapter-XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2013 is a special law, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 only applies where the special law is silent. The Court further clarified that the provision for counseling under Section 8(1) is discretionary, as indicated by the word 'may'. Finding that the Magistrate had prima facie established the allegations and that the applicant would have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during trial, the Court dismissed the application, affirming that the Magistrate acted within their jurisdiction to protect the aggrieved person.
Questions settled- Is the provision for mandatory counseling under Section 8(1) of the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2013, mandatory or discretionary for the court?
- Does the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 apply to proceedings under the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2013 when the Act is silent?
- Can a Judicial Magistrate take cognizance of a domestic violence petition based on prima facie evidence before a full trial?
- Ghulam Shabbir and another vs The State2023 YLR 153 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved the reliability of police-only mashirs in a thickly populated area, the implications of a delay in sending the recovered contraband to the chemical examiner, the integrity of the chain of custody, and the competency of the Rapid Response Force to conduct routine vehicle checking and narcotics searches. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and transmission of the contraband, noted material contradictions and the absence of independent witnesses despite availability, and questioned the authority of the Rapid Response Force for routine policing duties. The court concluded that multiple circumstances created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charge. The key legal principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, and an unbroken chain of custody is mandatory to rely on a chemical examiner's report.
Questions settled- Whether the omission to associate independent witnesses from a thickly populated area renders a narcotics recovery doubtful?
- Does a delay in dispatching seized narcotic samples to the chemical examiner break the chain of custody and vitiate the conviction?
- Whether the Rapid Response Force is legally competent to conduct routine vehicular patrolling and searches under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Is a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal?
- Ghulam Shabbir (deceased) through L.Rs vs Muhammad Nawaz2023 LHC 5870, 2024 YLR 789 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-17Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabbir & others, Altaf Hussain Khuhro & others, Noor Hassan &PTCL 2023 CL. 109 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Petitioners, officers of the Audit Cadre in the Inland Revenue Department, filed constitutional petitions challenging FBR's clarification letter dated 25.02.2022 and Paragraph 3 of Notification dated 28.10.2015. The impugned notification directed that officers of the Audit Cadre shall not be posted as Unit In-charge in field formations nor assigned assessment-related duties. The Petitioners asserted that being Assistant Directors of Inland Revenue, this restriction was discriminatory, ultra vires, and contrary to statutory provisions. The High Court dismissed the petitions. The Court held that the primary grievance related to transfers, postings, and duties, which fall within the terms and conditions of service of civil servants. Consequently, the constitutional petition was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, leaving the Service Tribunal as the appropriate forum. On merits, the Court reaffirmed under Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 that civil servants have no vested right to a particular posting or assignment and FBR possesses administrative authority to assign postings and duties as deemed fit.
Questions settled- Does a constitutional petition lie in respect of transfer, posting, and assignment of duties of a civil servant despite the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Does a civil servant possess a vested legal right to demand a specific posting, field assignment, or particular duties?
- Is FBR's administrative clarification excluding Audit Cadre officers from assessment duties actionable under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Ghulam Sarwar vs The State2023 SHC 413 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant Ghulam Sarwar seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under various sections including Pakistan Penal Code provisions for hurt and other offences, pending before the trial court. The core legal questions involved whether the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and whether the applicant was entitled to bail given that the primary penal section applicable provided for financial liability rather than imprisonment, alongside delays in the trial. The Sindh High Court held that the offence under Section 337-U of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 prescribes payment of Diyat or Arsh without entailing a sentence of imprisonment, thus falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and further noted that prolonged incarceration without trial progress warranted the grant of bail. The court laid down the principle that offences lacking a sentence of imprisonment do not attract the prohibitory clause, and an accused cannot be indefinitely detained when the prosecution causes trial delays.
Questions settled- Whether an offence punishable only with financial liability such as Diyat or Arsh falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the removal of a tooth constitute the loss of an organ attracting punishments for itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an accused be kept in indefinite custody when the trial is delayed due to the fault of the prosecution?
- Ghulam Sarwar Lashari vs The State2023 SHC 958 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder and abduction under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering the significant delay in FIR registration, material contradictions in eyewitness testimony, and suspicious police conduct. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies: the nine-day delay in lodging the FIR, the failure of eyewitnesses to intervene during the abduction despite being numerous, and the conflict between oral testimony and medical evidence regarding the time of death and firing distance. Furthermore, the Court noted that the police's failure to act upon initial information and the subsequent identification of co-accused after a significant delay undermined the credibility of the prosecution's narrative. The Court reaffirmed the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Does a significant delay in the registration of an FIR, without a plausible explanation, undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
- When medical evidence regarding the time of death and firing distance contradicts the oral testimony of eyewitnesses, how should the court weigh the evidence?
- Is the benefit of the doubt in a criminal trial a right of the accused when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
- Does the failure of police to act upon initial information regarding an abduction and subsequent murder cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events?
- Ghulam Sarwar Ghangro vs The State2023 YLR 1368 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III/MCTC-II, Sukkur, in a murder case. The appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, receiving a life sentence and compensation. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite the non-recovery of the crime weapon, the absence of forensic reports, and the alleged interested nature of the witnesses. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution's case was established through consistent, confidence-inspiring ocular evidence corroborated by medical reports. The Court affirmed that the mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render them interested or unreliable, especially when their presence is established and their testimony is consistent. Furthermore, the Court held that the non-recovery of a weapon or the absence of forensic evidence is not fatal to the prosecution's case when other direct, natural evidence is sufficient to prove guilt, particularly where the accused has absconded, preventing recovery efforts.
Questions settled- Does the mere relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased render their testimony unreliable or interested?
- Is the non-recovery of the crime weapon fatal to the prosecution's case when ocular evidence is otherwise consistent and reliable?
- Can a conviction be sustained in the absence of forensic reports if the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused through other direct evidence?
- Do minor contradictions in prosecution evidence warrant the acquittal of an accused?
- Ghulam Safdar vs Mukhtiar & others2023 SHC 170 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-06Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Raza and another vs Mureed Abbas and others2023 CLC 122 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool, etc. vs Province of Punjab, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 448 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-29Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs StatePLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 50 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner challenging his conviction and life imprisonment sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the complainant's son. The petitioner contended that there was a reasonable doubt regarding his identity because the First Information Report (FIR) named 'Rasool Bakhsh' rather than 'Ghulam Rasool' as the assailant, and further argued that the recovered knife could not have caused the fatal neck injury. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the identity of the petitioner was never disputed during the trial, and his alias 'Rasoola' was explicitly mentioned in the FIR, investigation proceedings, and his own statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reiterated that under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, it does not act as an ordinary court of appeal and will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is gross misreading or non-reading of material evidence, or the findings are shocking or improbable.
Questions settled- Whether a discrepancy between the formal name of an accused and the name or alias recorded in the FIR creates a reasonable doubt if the identity was never disputed during the trial?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a criminal appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 without a showing of gross misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Does a medical opinion stating that any sharp-edged weapon could cause the fatal injury sufficiently connect a recovered knife to the commission of the offence?
- Ghulam Rasool vs Muhammad Siddiq and others2023 PLD Supreme Court 19 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a civil review petition and an associated application filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking substitution of the Advocate Supreme Court and review of an earlier order dismissing a civil petition for non-prosecution and on merits. The core legal questions involved the requirements for substituting an advocate in review proceedings under the Supreme Court Rules, the scope of review under Article 188 of the Constitution, and the consequences of filing frivolous review petitions. The Court held that substitution of an advocate requires special leave and valid reasons, which were absent, and that no grounds were made out to justify review under the law. The Court dismissed both the substitution application and the review petition, emphasizing that frivolous review filings attract disciplinary consequences under the rules.
Questions settled- Whether an application for review can be entertained when drawn by an Advocate other than the one who appeared at the hearing without special leave of the Court?
- Does a party's mere desire constitute sufficient ground to disregard rules governing representation in review proceedings?
- What are the consequences under the Supreme Court Rules for filing a vexatious or frivolous review petition?
- Can an Advocate-on-Record withdraw from a case merely because their fees, costs, or charges have not been paid?
- Ghulam Rasool son of Allah Warayo Ogahi, Kashmir son of Huzoor Bux2023 SHC 270 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool @ Rasooli S/O Ghulam Muhammad vs The State2023 SHC 894 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 6(i) and 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 775 grams of heroin. The core legal question centered on whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the quantity of heroin recovered, the amendments introduced by the Sindh Amendment Act regarding narcotic categories, and the applicability of the statutory prohibitory clause. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the quantity of heroin recovered exceeded the threshold under the applicable Sindh amendments, falling squarely within Section 9(c) of the Act, which carries capital punishment or imprisonment for life. The Court laid down the principle that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the record is undertaken, and where an accused is found in possession of a substantial quantity of narcotics and has previous similar criminal cases, bail should be refused as the offense constitutes a crime against society.
Questions settled- Whether an accused found in possession of 775 grams of heroin is entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Can the question of false police implication be deeply evaluated at the stage of deciding a bail application?
- Are the provisions regarding the association of private persons under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 considered directory?
- Ghulam Rasool & Another vs Chief Election Commissioner and others2023 SHC 1028 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-22Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rabbani and others vs Abdul Aziz and others2023 YLR 2422 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-05Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qadir vs Ramsha Ghaffar & others2023 SHC 218 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-14Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qadir Khan vs National Accountability Bureau, Etc2023 LHC 6132 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-23Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nazik, etc vs The State, etc2023 LHC 6463, 2024 MLD 1484 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of an FIR registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged misappropriation of animals given on a share basis several years prior to the report. The core legal question is whether the transaction constituted a criminal breach of trust or merely a civil dispute involving a business agreement, and whether pre-arrest bail ought to be confirmed given the delay in lodging the FIR and the nature of the transaction. The court held that the ingredients of criminal breach of trust were not attracted since the animals were handed over for a share in business rather than on trust, and confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principles laid down include that a mere breach of promise, agreement, or contract does not constitute criminal breach of trust without an element of entrustment, and that the merits of a case may be touched upon even at the pre-arrest bail stage.
Questions settled- Does a mere breach of promise or business agreement constitute a criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the merits of a case be touched upon while deciding an application for pre-arrest bail?
- How is mala fide established when it is a state of mind that cannot always be proved through direct evidence?
- Ghulam Nabi vs The State2023 MLD 2060 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal jail appeal before the High Court of Sindh challenged the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sections 302(b), 148, and 337-H(2) read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including rigorous imprisonment for life on each count for double murder. The core legal issues centered on whether the ocular testimony of related witnesses could sustain conviction without independent corroboration, whether previous enmity necessitated false implication, and the evidentiary value of medical evidence and minor contradictions. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences, holding that the direct ocular testimony was natural, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by the recovery of weapons and crime empties. The Court reaffirmed that law values the quality, not quantity, of evidence; mere relationship between witnesses and victims does not render them 'interested' without motive to substitute the real culprit; and minor discrepancies or the confirmatory nature of medical evidence do not dismantle a credible prosecution case.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of related eyewitnesses without independent corroboration?
- What constitutes an 'interested witness' in criminal jurisprudence, and does mere relationship to the deceased suffice to discredit their testimony?
- What is the evidentiary role and probative limit of medical evidence in criminal trials concerning the identity of the accused?
- Do minor discrepancies and contradictions between witness statements warrant the rejection of ocular evidence in a murder case?
- Ghulam Nabi vs Kabir Khan2023 LHC 2090 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-16Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi Sheikh and another vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and another2023 PLC (C.S.) 32 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Islamabad High Court addressed sixteen consolidated writ petitions challenging a notification dated 17.10.2018 issued by the Establishment Division, whereby civil servants and ex-cadre officers serving as deputationists in the Federal Secretariat were repatriated to their parent departments. The petitioners argued that having completed more than three years on deputation, they had developed a legitimate expectation to be absorbed or inducted into the Office Management Group (OMG) against the 10% quota reserved for deputationists. The court held that deputationists possess no vested right to serve out a specific period or remain in the borrowing department indefinitely, and the competent authority retains the power to repatriate them at any time. Furthermore, absorption/induction in the OMG cannot occur automatically and requires compliance with the prescribed competitive procedure, including testing and selection by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC). Finding no illegality in the repatriation orders and noting that a deputationist is not an 'aggrieved person' for invoking constitutional jurisdiction, the High Court dismissed all the writ petitions.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant serving on deputation have a vested right to complete the full term or remain indefinitely in the borrowing department?
- Can a deputationist challenge an order of repatriation to their parent department through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Is a deputationist automatically entitled to absorption or induction in the Office Management Group (OMG) merely on the ground of having served for more than three years in the Federal Secretariat?
- Ghulam Nabi alias Naboo alias Nabi Bux vs The State2023 MLD 1831 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 2050 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the integrity of the evidence and the chain of custody. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with material contradictions regarding the arrest, the preparation of the mashirnama, and the handling of the contraband. Crucially, the court found that the unexplained delay in transmitting the samples to the chemical laboratory broke the chain of custody, rendering the chemical examiner's report unreliable. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any break in the chain of custody of narcotics samples entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, rather than grace.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in dispatching narcotics samples to a chemical laboratory break the chain of custody?
- What is the legal consequence of a broken chain of custody in a narcotics case regarding the reliability of the chemical examiner's report?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when material contradictions exist in the prosecution's evidence?
- Ghulam Mustafa, etc. vs Muhammad Musharaf Hussain, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 485 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore etc2023 LHC 5999, 2025 PLJ Lahore 22 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the jurisdiction of the Punjab Labour Court to adjudicate a reference regarding the non-payment of bonus by a trans-provincial establishment, M/s UDL Distribution (Pvt.) Ltd. The petitioner argued that as a trans-provincial entity, the matter fell exclusively under the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and that the Labour Court lacked authority. The Court examined the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968, specifically Standing Order No. 7(6), which explicitly mandates that no court other than a Labour Court shall try offences under the Ordinance. The Court held that the Labour Court possesses exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate violations of the Standing Orders, regardless of the establishment's trans-provincial status, as the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 does not encompass disputes regarding bonus payments. The judgment affirms that jurisdiction is determined by the parent statute governing the specific violation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower fora that the Labour Court was the competent forum for the prosecution of the alleged non-payment of bonus.
Questions settled- Does a Labour Court have exclusive jurisdiction to try offences under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968?
- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction over disputes concerning the non-payment of bonus by a trans-provincial establishment?
- Can the jurisdiction of a Labour Court be ousted simply because an establishment is trans-provincial in nature?
- Do Inspectors appointed under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 possess the same powers as those under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968 regarding bonus payment disputes?
- Ghulam Mustafa son of Beerbal vs Election Commission of Pkaistan &2023 SHC 473 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa & Others vs Province of Sindh & Others2023 SHC 307 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-11Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa & others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 SHC 387 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-02Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Murtaza vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary2023 PLC (C.S.) 1188, 2023 PLJ Islamabad 246 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan challenging the appointments of various respondents in the Special Technology Zones Authority in a non-transparent manner. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a writ of quo warranto, whether the positions held by the respondents constituted public offices, and whether the petitioner approached the court with bona fide intentions or for collateral purposes as an employee of a media network. The Islamabad High Court held that the petition had become infructuous regarding some respondents who no longer held office, and more importantly, that the petitioner lacked bona fides, acting as a proxy in a malicious media campaign and blackmail enterprise following the authority's refusal to grant a license to the petitioner's employer. The court established the principle that a writ of quo warranto is a discretionary remedy which will be summarily dismissed if the petitioner is found to be acting with mala fide intent, ulterior motives, or as a proxy for private grievances, thereby abusing the court process. The petition was dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether a writ of quo warranto can be maintained when the petitioner lacks bona fides and acts for collateral purposes?
- Does a petition for quo warranto become infructuous if the respondents no longer hold the public office in question?
- Can the superior courts dismiss a writ of quo warranto summarily due to extraneous motives of the petitioner?
- Ghulam Muhammad vs The State and another2023 YLR 2266 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, Ghulam Muhammad, challenged his conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of life imprisonment rendered by the trial court. The complainant alleged that the appellant entered a doctor's clinic and fatally shot the deceased due to political rivalry. The Peshawar High Court examined the evidence, noting severe contradictions regarding the time and manner of the occurrence, the failure to establish the natural presence of the complainant and eye-witnesses at the scene, inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, and unexplained delays in reporting the crime. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the sole accused. Holding that the prosecution witnesses were chance witnesses whose presence was doubtful and that the medical evidence conflicted with the ocular account, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, while dismissing the connected revision for sentence enhancement and appeals against the acquittal of co-accused.
Questions settled- Whether the prosecution's failure to establish the natural presence of eye-witnesses at the scene of the crime is fatal to the case?
- Does a conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence warrant the acquittal of the accused?
- What is the legal effect when an accused fails to fully substantiate a plea of alibi taken in defence?
- Whether the non-production of best available evidence entitles the accused to an adverse inference under the law?
- Ghulam Muhammad vs Muhammad Hayat (Late) through Legal Heirs and others2023 LHC 2222 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad Khoso vs Chairman National Highway Authority and others, Province of Sind2023 SHC 988, 2024 YLR 1028 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-21Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad (deceased) through L.Rs. and others vs Hakim-Ud-2023 YLR 1899 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mohiuddin, Zaman Khan Vardag, The Jurists Foundation (Regd.)2023 SCP 223, 2023 PLD Supreme Court 825 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions challenged the vires of the Supreme Court (Review of Judgements and Orders) Act, 2023, which purported to expand the scope of review of judgments and orders passed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution to include both facts and law, effectively treating it as an appeal under Article 185, and requiring hearings by larger benches. The core legal questions involved whether Parliament is legally competent under Article 188 to alter the intrinsic nature of review jurisdiction into an appellate jurisdiction through ordinary legislation without a constitutional amendment, and whether the Act violates the independence of the judiciary as a salient feature of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that review and appeal are fundamentally distinct, that Parliament lacks the legislative competence to convert review into an appeal by ordinary law, and that the 2023 Act unconstitutionally intrudes upon judicial independence and the finality of apex court decisions. Consequently, the Court struck down the 2023 Act as ultra vires the Constitution, null, and void.
Questions settled- Whether Parliament can through ordinary legislation convert the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 188 into an appellate jurisdiction akin to Article 185?
- Does the Supreme Court (Review of Judgements and Orders) Act, 2023 violate the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional separation of powers?
- Whether review jurisdiction under Article 188 permits a re-hearing of a matter on questions of fact and law as in an appeal?
- Does the Parliament possess the legislative competence under Entry 55 of the Federal Legislative List or Article 188 to alter the scope of review and prescribe the composition of benches of the Supreme Court?
- Ghulam Mehmood Dogar vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2023 SCP 59 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a civil petition challenging an order of the Federal Service Tribunal concerning the transfer and repatriation of a police official (petitioner). During proceedings, the Supreme Court examined whether the caretaker Government of Punjab could lawfully transfer public officials under Section 230 of the Elections Act 2017 without proper expediency determinations and approval from the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The Chief Election Commissioner appeared and addressed questions regarding policy guidelines for caretaker transfers and the non-announcement of election dates following the dissolution of the Provincial Assembly of Punjab. Although the main controversy concerned the petitioner's transfer order, the court observed an imminent threat of non-compliance with the 90-day constitutional mandate for holding provincial elections under Article 224(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Declining to pass direct orders on the election timeline within the scope of the civil petition, the Supreme Court referred the matter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan to consider invoking suo motu jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
Questions settled- Can a caretaker government effect transfers and postings of public officials without specific approval and expediency determination under Section 230 of the Elections Act 2017?
- Whether the Supreme Court may refer a matter of public importance regarding non-holding of elections within the 90-day constitutional period to the Chief Justice for invoking suo motu jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
- Ghulam Mahdi Abro vs The State2023 SHC 140 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and confirmation reference arise from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular testimony and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a death sentence, particularly regarding the prosecution's failure to establish the alleged motive. The Court held that while the ocular testimony was sufficient to establish guilt, the prosecution failed to prove the motive, which was shrouded in mystery. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, citing the principle that an unproven motive can mitigate the sentence. The Court reaffirmed that the testimony of a related witness is admissible absent proof of enmity and that a conviction may be based on a single reliable witness. Furthermore, the Court ordered the appellant to pay compensation to the legal heirs under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and granted the benefit of Section 382-B.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive in a murder case warrant the commutation of a death sentence?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on the testimony of a single eye-witness related to the deceased?
- Is the failure to order compensation to legal heirs under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a curable error by the appellate court?
- Ghulam Madni vs State and 5 othersPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 782 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khanpur, which dismissed the petitioner-complainant's application for re-summoning the Investigating Officer (PW-11) for further re-examination. The core legal question revolves around whether a prosecution witness can be repeatedly recalled for re-examination to fill gaps in the prosecution's case. The Lahore High Court held that witnesses cannot be recalled for further examination merely to fill lacunae or protract proceedings, and that discretionary powers under procedural law cannot be abused to defeat the ends of justice. The court laid down the principle that while courts possess adequate powers to summon or re-summon any witness for a just decision, such powers will not be exercised to allow a party to fill in the gaps of its case, and revision against such discretionary orders requires showing exceptional circumstances or perversity.
Questions settled- Can a prosecution witness be re-summoned for further re-examination merely to fill in the lacunae of a case?
- What is the scope of the trial court's power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the re-summoning of witnesses?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court exercise its revisional jurisdiction against an order declining to recall a witness?
- Ghulam Khaliq (Omg), Section Officer, Establishment Division, Islamabad2023 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 46 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, upon passing the CSS examination in 2012, was allocated to the Office Management Group (OMG) in the 41st Common Training Programme (CTP). He applied for and received a deferment from the Secretary, Establishment Division, subsequently joining the 42nd CTP. In the provisional seniority list, the appellant’s seniority was fixed alongside the 42nd CTP rather than his original 41st CTP batch. After departmental objections and appeal were rejected, he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The core question was whether a civil servant who seeks and obtains deferment is entitled to retain seniority with their original batch. The Federal Service Tribunal held that under Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and Rule 3(b) of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, seniority is not a vested right and takes effect from the actual date of joining the post upon regular appointment. Deferment is a concession that creates no vested rights, and seniority must be determined with the batch actually joined.
Questions settled- Is seniority a vested right under Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Does a probationer who receives a deferment retain seniority with their original batch upon joining a subsequent training batch?
- From what date is inter se seniority reckoned for initial appointments under the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993?
- Ghulam Jan vs The State2023 YLR 1786 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hyder Shah vs Province of Sindh through Home Secretary2023 YLR 1746 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-05Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs The State2023 YLR 581 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Ghulam Hussain in Crime No.05 of 2020 registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Guloo Sial, District Khairpur. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail when he is specifically nominated in the FIR with a role of firing at the deceased, supported by ocular and medical evidence, and where the offence falls within the prohibitory clause. The Sindh High Court held that since the applicant is nominated with a specific role of firing resulting in the death of the deceased, and as the medical evidence corroborates the ocular account, the case calls for tentative assessment and does not permit deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage. The court laid down the principle that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage, and where an accused is prima facie connected with an offence falling within the prohibitory clause, the concession of post-arrest bail is rightly denied. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an accused nominated in the FIR with a specific role of firing at the deceased is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence warrant the grant of bail at the preliminary stage?
- Is deeper appreciation of evidence permissible while deciding a bail plea?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure disentitle the accused to the concession of bail?
- Ghulam Hussain vs Rent Controller, Gujranwala and another2023 YLR 820 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Education and Literacy Department and 2 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 194 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking appointment to the post of Naib Qasid (BPS-01) in the School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Sindh, after successfully passing the written test and interview. The respondents rejected his candidature on the ground that being highly qualified (holding a Master's degree), he would not properly perform the duties of a Naib Qasid. The core legal question was whether a candidate can be denied public employment on the mere presumption that their higher educational qualification makes them unsuitable for a lower post. The court held that rejecting a candidate on such a presumption without a basis in law constitutes discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. The matter was remanded to the competent authority for a fresh decision and consideration of the petitioner's case.
Questions settled- Can a candidate be denied appointment to a lower post on the presumption that their higher educational qualification makes them unsuitable for the job?
- Does rejection of a qualified candidate based on arbitrary assumptions violate Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- How must posts in basic pay scales 1 and 2 be filled under Rule 16 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1974?
- Ghulam Hussain Chand vs Secretary, Revenue Division_Chairman, FBR, Islamabad and 2 others2023 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 101 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order of compulsory retirement from service imposed on the appellant, an Assistant Director (Audit), on grounds of inefficiency and misconduct due to alleged unauthorized absence from duty. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings, which dispensed with a regular inquiry despite the appellant's denial of charges and allegations of mala fide against a superior officer, were valid. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the compulsory retirement order was unsustainable. The Tribunal found that a regular inquiry could not be dispensed with without justification when the charges were denied and mala fide was alleged, emphasizing that the Apex Court has repeatedly held that reasons for dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry must be provided. The court set aside the impugned order, directing that the appellant be treated as on duty until his superannuation date and be paid all back and consequential benefits, as principles of natural justice were grossly violated.
Questions settled- Can a regular departmental inquiry be dispensed with when a civil servant denies the charges of inefficiency and misconduct?
- What are the requirements for dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
- Is a major penalty like compulsory retirement valid if imposed without a proper inquiry when allegations of mala fide are raised?
- What are the consequences if principles of natural justice are violated in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
- Can a civil servant be deemed on duty until superannuation if their compulsory retirement is set aside due to procedural irregularities?
- Ghulam Farooq & another vs The State2023 SHC 1130 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns bail applications filed by the accused persons seeking pre-arrest and post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving a dispute over agricultural land. The core legal question is whether the applicants are entitled to the concession of bail given the specific roles assigned to them, the nature of the injuries inflicted upon the complainant party, and the existence of prior enmity. The Court held that the applicants were not entitled to bail, noting that they were assigned specific roles in causing serious injuries punishable by up to ten years imprisonment. The Court observed that the collective approach and the severity of the injuries indicated a pre-determined intent to cause harm. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence of mala fide on the part of the complainant to justify pre-arrest bail. The principle laid down is that where there is prima facie evidence of serious injuries and specific roles assigned to the accused, and no clear evidence of mala fide, the concession of bail should be denied, leaving the matter to be determined by the trial court after the examination of witnesses.
Questions settled- Are accused persons entitled to pre-arrest bail when they fail to demonstrate mala fide on the part of the complainant?
- Does the existence of admitted enmity between parties automatically entitle an accused to bail in a criminal case?
- Should bail be granted when the accused are assigned specific roles in causing serious injuries punishable by long-term imprisonment?
- Ghulam Farid and others vs Ahmad Khan and others2023 CLC 355 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-25Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Fareed vs Government of Punjab, etc2023 LHC 1609 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-06Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Fareed (deceased) through his L.Rs., etc vs Daulan Bibi2023 SCP 372, 2024 SCMR 202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed against concurrent findings of three lower forums wherein a suit challenging a sale mutation was decreed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The core legal questions concerned the validity of a sale mutation where the thumb impression of the purported vendor was denied and scientifically disproven through a Finger Print Bureau report, as well as the determination of the issue of limitation regarding the knowledge of the sale. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the beneficiary of the sale failed to discharge the burden of proof, whereas the respondent conclusively established through forensic evidence that the thumb impression on the mutation was not hers, and the petitioners failed to prove prior knowledge to substantiate their plea of limitation. The Court affirmed the concurrent judgments, dismissed the petition with costs throughout, imposed compensatory costs for retaining illegal possession, and directed the immediate delivery of possession of the subject land to the respondent.
Questions settled- Does the burden to establish a purported sale mutation lie upon its beneficiary?
- Is a Finger Print Bureau report sufficient to disprove a thumb impression on a sale mutation?
- Where the defendant raises the plea of limitation regarding knowledge of a sale, upon whom does the onus to prove prior knowledge lie?
- Can the Supreme Court impose compensatory costs for retaining illegal possession after concurrent findings against a petitioner?
- Ghulam Dastgeer vs The State and another2023 YLR 793 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Ghulam Dastgeer, under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with co-accused who were subsequently acquitted, participated in the murder of the deceased by firing at him. The core legal question before the appellate court was whether the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and whether a conviction could be sustained by relying solely on the inculpatory portion of the defence's plea under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while rejecting the prosecution's evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case, as the testimony of the eye-witnesses was riddled with material improvements and contradictions, rendering their presence at the scene doubtful. The court further held that a statement of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted or rejected in its entirety and cannot be split to extract an admission of guilt when the prosecution's evidence has been discarded. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the basis of the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Can an accused person be convicted solely on the basis of an inculpatory admission contained in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution evidence has been entirely disbelieved?
- Whether the statement of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is to be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
- Does material improvement in the testimony of an eye-witness regarding the manner of occurrence render the ocular account doubtful?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the prosecution's case?
- Ghulam Dastagir and another vs Allah Baksh2023 YLR 2637 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-05Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Bahauddin Khan, Imaduddin Khan vs Muhammad Islamuddin2023 SHC 92 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-06Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Asghar Pathan and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 PLD Sindh 187 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Asghar Pathan & others, Emad ul Hasan vs Federation of Pakistan2023 SHC 84 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Asghar Pathan & others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 SHC 86 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-01Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ali vs Rana Babar Khan and 3 others2023 PLD Lahore 507 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-26Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ali alias Lami and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 671 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court in a murder case. The core legal question was whether a trial in a capital case is vitiated when the examination-in-chief of key prosecution witnesses is recorded in the absence of the accused's defense counsel. The High Court held that the trial court’s failure to ensure the presence of defense counsel during the examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses in a capital case constituted a significant procedural illegality that prejudiced the appellants. The Court determined that this omission violated the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and the statutory right to be defended by a pleader under Section 340(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the matter to the trial court for a retrial from the stage of recording the evidence of the affected witnesses in the presence of the defense counsel, emphasizing that such procedural failures are not curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does the recording of examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses in the absence of defense counsel in a capital case violate the right to a fair trial?
- Is the failure to provide defense counsel during the examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses in a capital case an incurable illegality?
- Does the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 guarantee the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings?
- Ghulam Abbas vs Gop, etc.2023 LHC 4080, 2024 PCRLJ 1298, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 934 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the orders placing the appellant's name in the 4th Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the subsequent rejection of his review petition. The core legal question concerns whether the state established 'reasonable grounds' under Section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to justify such proscription. The Lahore High Court held that the state failed to provide any credible, concrete material linking the appellant to any proscribed organization or terrorist activity. The court emphasized that enlisting a person in the 4th Schedule severely restricts fundamental rights, including liberty and property, and therefore requires a stringent, evidence-based approach. The court ruled that mere involvement in a past criminal case, without fresh, articulable evidence, is insufficient to justify such listing. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders. The judgment establishes that 'reasonable grounds' for proscription must be based on credible, verifiable evidence that transcends mere suspicion, conjecture, or stale criminal records, ensuring the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
Questions settled- What constitutes 'reasonable grounds' for listing a person in the 4th Schedule under the Anti-terrorism Act, 1997?
- Can a person be listed in the 4th Schedule based solely on past involvement in a criminal case?
- Does the listing of a person in the 4th Schedule of the Anti-terrorism Act, 1997, require the state to provide concrete and credible evidence?
- Ghulam Abbas son of Muhammad Moosa (Now confined at Central Prison2023 SHC 485 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas Magsi vs The State2023 PCRLJ 355 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal jail appeal assailed the trial court judgment convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) and other provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment alongside fines and compensation for murder and injuries caused during an armed incident. The core legal questions pertained to whether the testimony of related injured eye-witnesses could be relied upon, whether the non-recovery of the crime weapon was fatal to the prosecution, and whether minor contradictions in witness statements created reasonable doubt. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences. The court held that the ocular evidence provided by natural injured eye-witnesses was credible, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence and crime-scene recoveries, establishing that close relationship alone does not make witnesses interested or partisan. Furthermore, the non-recovery of the weapon of offence is not fatal when direct, trustworthy evidence proves the charge. Minor discrepancies in evidence are to be disregarded if the prosecution establishes its case beyond reasonable doubt based on the totality of circumstances.
Questions settled- Does the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased render their testimony interested or untrustworthy?
- Is the non-recovery of a weapon of offence fatal to the prosecution case when direct and credible ocular evidence exists?
- Do minor discrepancies or contradictions in witness testimony invalidate a prosecution case established beyond reasonable doubt?
- Ghiasuddin vs The Federation of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 86 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-10Read full judgment →
- Ghazi Khan vs Muhammad Yousaf and 2 others2023 CLC 2098 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-30Read full judgment →
- Ghazi Fabrics International Ltd. and 3 others vs Federation of Pakistan and 6 others2023 CLC 324 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-11Read full judgment →
- Ghansham Das vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2023 SCP 309, 2024 SCMR 188, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan challenges the judgment of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's service appeal against his removal from service. The core legal question concerns the validity of disciplinary proceedings and removal from service for willful absence after the petitioner failed to join his parent department following the devolution of the Pakistan Forest Institute under the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment, despite the expiry of his deputation period. The Supreme Court held that a deputationist has no vested right to serve an entire deputation period, stands automatically relieved upon its expiry unless extended, and is liable to repatriation or disciplinary action for willful absence upon failing to rejoin. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, finding the disciplinary proceedings and removal order lawful and noting that the service appeal was also hopelessly time-barred. The key principles laid down include that deputation is a temporary arrangement yielding to exigencies of service, automatic relief occurs upon expiry of deputation terms, and statutory limitation periods for service appeals must be strictly observed.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant on deputation have a vested right to serve their entire deputation period in the borrowing department?
- What is the legal effect on a civil servant's duties upon the expiry of their specified deputation period without extension?
- Whether an employee of a devolved institution can challenge repatriation to their parent department after constitutional devolution?
- When does time begin to run for filing a service appeal before the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal against an uncommunicated departmental representation?
- Ghaffar Hussain vs The State & others2023 SC AJK 14 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-01-31Read full judgment →
- General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 SCP 340, 2024 SCMR 60, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 88, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf against his conviction by a Special Court. The appeal was initially not numbered by the Supreme Court office due to an objection regarding the appellant's failure to surrender, citing the proviso to rule 8 of Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The appellant challenged this objection via a Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal. Despite an order from a Judge in Chamber directing the matter to be fixed before a Bench, the appeal remained unlisted for over three years until the appellant's death. The Supreme Court addressed whether the appeal should be numbered despite the office objection and the subsequent death of the appellant. The Court held that the appeal should be numbered, emphasizing that the right of appeal is a fundamental adjunct to fair trial and due process under Article 10A of the Constitution. The Court affirmed the principle that no litigant should suffer due to the inaction or delay of the Court, thereby allowing the appeal to be numbered and listed for further proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the right of appeal constitute an essential component of the right to a fair trial and due process under the Constitution?
- Can a litigant be penalized for the inordinate delay caused by the Court's failure to list a matter for hearing?
- Should an appeal be numbered by the Court office despite an objection regarding the appellant's failure to surrender?
- G.A. Enterprises (Private) Limited and 2 Others: In the matter of vs Not2023 CLD 417 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-28Read full judgment →
- Foundation Securities (Pvt.) Ltd. and Another: In the matter of vs Not2023 CLD 883 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-13Read full judgment →
- Flying Paper Industries Ltd. through Authorized Representative vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division and 3 others2023 PTD 1165 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Fiyaz Haider Nawabi, Advocate Supreme Court Mirpur Member Azad2023 PLJ AJ&K 27 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- First Dawood Investment Bank Ltd., Karachi vs Bank of Punjab through President, Lahore2023 PLJ SC 142 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a conditional winding-up order passed by the Sindh High Court against the appellant-company under the Companies Ordinance 1984. The respondent-bank had petitioned for winding up based on the appellant's alleged default on liabilities arising from a Letter of Commitment and two guarantees. The appellant-company contended that the respondent-bank had unilaterally altered the underlying financial agreements without its consent, thereby discharging its liability as a surety under the Contract Act 1872, and that the debt was bona fide disputed. The Supreme Court analyzed the scope of the deeming provision under Section 306(1)(a) of the Ordinance, holding that 'neglect to pay' refers to a refusal without reasonable cause. Where a debtor-company raises a bona fide dispute of substance, it cannot be deemed unable to pay its debts. The Court held that winding-up proceedings are discretionary and cannot be used to settle complex civil or contractual disputes, which are properly within the jurisdiction of civil or banking courts.
Questions settled- Does a mere omission to comply with a statutory demand notice under Section 306(1)(a) of the Companies Ordinance 1984 automatically establish that a company is unable to pay its debts?
- Can a company court order the winding up of a company when there is a bona fide dispute of substance regarding the existence of the underlying debt?
- Whether a company court should exercise its discretionary winding-up jurisdiction to adjudicate complex factual and legal questions arising from financial guarantees when a recovery suit is pending before a banking court?
- Filter Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Mto, Karachi2023 PTD (Trib.) 889 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-03-25Read full judgment →
- Fida Ullah Khan vs President Habib Bank Limited, Head Office, Habib Bank2023 PLC 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an order of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which had set aside a reinstatement order previously granted to the petitioner, a former bank manager. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, designated as a Manager (Band-I) and holding a power of attorney, qualified as a "workman" under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968, to maintain a grievance petition. The Court held that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving his status as a workman, as he performed supervisory duties rather than manual or clerical work. The Court affirmed that the burden of proof lies on the individual approaching the labor forum to establish their status as a workman. Furthermore, the Court held that bank managers and power of attorney holders generally fall outside the definition of a "workman." Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner's employment terms were governed by his contract, and any grievance regarding termination should be pursued in an appropriate civil forum rather than the NIRC.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof lie on the employee to establish their status as a workman when approaching a labor forum?
- Can a bank manager who holds a power of attorney be classified as a workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Is the status of a workman determined by the designation of the post or by the actual nature of the duties performed?
- Where should an employee pursue a grievance if they do not qualify as a workman under labor laws?
- Fida Muhammad vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government Elections & Rural Development Department, Peshawar & others2023 PHC 532 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Fida Hussain Warraich vs Syed Zarfan Hussain Shah2023 MLD 437 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-10-31Read full judgment →
- Fida Hussain vs Chief Secretary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Civil Secretariat, and others2023 SCP 144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that allowed a writ petition filed by a Patwari. The dispute originated from a seniority conflict between the petitioner and respondent No. 7, involving allegations regarding the legality of the respondent’s initial appointment. After a fact-finding inquiry recommended disciplinary action, the competent authority initially filed the report without action, citing pending service appeals. Subsequently, a higher authority directed a de novo inquiry, which the High Court set aside as a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that a competent authority is not mandatorily bound to accept an inquiry officer's recommendations. The Court established that while an authority may impose penalties based on inquiry findings, it possesses the discretion to file an inquiry report without action if reasoned, and there is no legal justification for ordering a de novo inquiry in every instance. The Court ultimately disposed of the petition by directing the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal to expeditiously decide the petitioner’s pending service appeal regarding inter-se seniority.
Questions settled- Is a competent authority mandatorily bound to accept the recommendations of an inquiry officer in disciplinary proceedings?
- Can a superior authority order a de novo inquiry after the competent authority has already filed an inquiry report without action?
- Does the filing of an inquiry report by a competent authority without taking action constitute a final decision that precludes further administrative interference?
- Fida Hussain vs Chief Secretary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Civil Secretariat and others2023 SCMR 1109, 2023 PLC (C.S) 1499 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that set aside an order for a de novo disciplinary inquiry against a Patwari. The core dispute involved inter-se seniority and the validity of the respondent's initial appointment. The petitioner sought to challenge the respondent's appointment based on a fact-finding inquiry report, while the respondent contended that the matter was already subject to pending service appeals. The Supreme Court held that the competent authority is not mandatorily bound to accept the recommendations of an inquiry officer. While the authority may impose penalties or file the report, it must exercise its discretion with proper reasoning. The Court affirmed that directing a de novo inquiry without lawful justification, particularly when the competent authority has already exercised its discretion to file an inquiry report, is improper. The Court found no perversity in the High Court's decision, noting that the underlying seniority dispute was already pending before the Service Tribunal, and directed the Tribunal to expedite the resolution of the petitioner's pending service appeal.
Questions settled- Is a competent authority legally bound to accept the recommendations of an inquiry officer in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
- Can a superior authority direct a de novo disciplinary inquiry after the competent authority has already exercised its discretion to file an inquiry report?
- Does the filing of an inquiry report by a competent authority constitute a final decision that precludes further administrative directions for a de novo inquiry without new justification?
- Fida Hussain and others vs The State and others2023 PCRLJ 1546 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case involves criminal appeals against convictions for abduction and rape under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given significant evidentiary gaps. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, setting aside the convictions and acquitting the appellants. The Court emphasized that an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the 'best evidence rule,' noting that the prosecution's failure to produce a minor witness and other key witnesses warranted an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The Court also found that the medical evidence, which showed no signs of sexual intercourse, directly contradicted the prosecutrix's allegations. Finally, the Court reiterated that when prosecution witnesses are disbelieved regarding some accused, their testimony cannot support the conviction of others without strong, independent corroboration. Consequently, the appellants were granted the benefit of the doubt and acquitted.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR warrant the acquittal of the accused?
- Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for failing to produce a minor witness?
- Is medical evidence showing no signs of sexual intercourse sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a rape case?
- Can the testimony of witnesses disbelieved regarding some accused be used to convict others without independent corroboration?
- FIA through Director General, FIA and others vs Syed Hamid Ali Shah and ot2023 SCP 55 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Islamabad High Court that had accepted writ petitions and quashed an FIR registered by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) under Sections 409 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 regarding alleged illegal upgradations of Capital Development Authority employees. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 versus Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, holding that a High Court cannot quash an FIR or police investigation under Section 561-A, which applies only to judicial proceedings, but can do so under its constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that the misuse of administrative powers to grant service upgradations does not constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 405/409 PPC or criminal misconduct under the PCA, as the entrustment of public authority is not equivalent to the entrustment of property. Finding the FIA's action devoid of lawful authority, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition with costs.
Questions settled- Can a High Court quash a First Information Report or police investigation under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the misuse of administrative power or authority in service matters constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Are the acts of registering an FIR and conducting an investigation by police or Federal Investigation Agency officers amenable to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the entrustment of power to a public servant to upgrade subordinate officials amount to entrustment of property under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Feroz Bari vs Syed Ayaz Hussain and 3 others2023 PLD Sindh 263 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-06Read full judgment →
- Fehmida Kiran vs Chairman House Allotment Committee/ Secretary2023 MLD 659, 2023 PLJ Quetta 168 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-22Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of National Health2023 PLC (C.S.) 336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case involves civil petitions for leave to appeal directed against a common judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which allowed service appeals filed by retired employees of the Population Welfare Department regarding the grant of move-over from BPS-19 to BPS-20. The core legal question was whether the respondents, having attained proforma promotion after reaching the maximum stage of their pay scale prior to the discontinuation of the move-over policy, were entitled to the grant of move-over. The Supreme Court held that move-over is an extension of an existing pay scale meant to alleviate stagnation, and since the respondents had reached the maximum stage of BPS-19 prior to their proforma promotion and before the policy cut-off date, they were legally entitled to the move-over benefit. The Court laid down the key principle that administrative delays or oversights in granting promotions cannot prejudice a civil servant's accrued rights, and that proforma promotion operates to rescue employees from stagnation and loss caused by such administrative lapses, aligning with the principles embodied in Fundamental Rule 17.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant who reaches the maximum stage of a basic pay scale before proforma promotion is entitled to a move-over under the erstwhile policy?
- Does a move-over constitute a regular promotion to a higher post or an extension of the existing basic pay scale?
- Whether service appeals against the denial of move-over benefits are barred by limitation when filed after the communication of a departmental rejection memorandum?
- Can a departmental committee refuse move-over benefits on the ground that proforma promotions were originally granted pursuant to court orders?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice2023 SCP 293, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 515 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil petitions for leave to appeal challenged the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had set aside the Parliamentary Committee's decision not to confirm the recommendations of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan regarding the appointment of Additional Judges of the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question centered on the respective scopes, powers, and jurisdictions of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan and the Parliamentary Committee under Article 175A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, specifically whether the Committee has the authority to remand nominations back to the Commission or review the evaluation of professional competence and seniority. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions by majority, holding that the Parliamentary Committee is not vested with any power to act as an appellate forum or to remand nominations for reconsideration, and its role is strictly confined to confirming or non-confirming a nominee based on objective reasons pertaining to antecedents such as character, moral, and financial integrity. The key principle laid down is that the assessment of professional caliber, legal acumen, and suitability of a judicial nominee falls exclusively within the domain of the Judicial Commission, and the Committee cannot overturn or undermine a majority recommendation of the Commission without sound, independent reasoning falling within its own domain.
Questions settled- Whether the Parliamentary Committee has the authority under Article 175A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to remand a nomination back to the Judicial Commission of Pakistan for reconsideration?
- Does the evaluation of the professional caliber, legal acumen, and competence of a judicial nominee fall exclusively within the domain of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan?
- Can the Parliamentary Committee substitute its own evaluation for the majority recommendations of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan on grounds of seniority?
- What is the scope of review and the permissible grounds upon which the Parliamentary Committee may refuse to confirm a nominee recommended by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi, and another vs Messrs Farrukh International (Pvt.) Ltd. through Proprietor2023 SCMR 1118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Petitioners filed a suit for recovery of money against the Respondent following an alleged breach of a supply contract. The Respondent failed to appear, leading to ex parte proceedings. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the Petitioners failed to prove their claim, a decision upheld by the Appellate Court and the High Court in revision. The Supreme Court addressed whether the courts below erred in dismissing the suit despite the ex parte status of the defendant. The Court held that even in ex parte proceedings, a court is not bound to decree a suit mechanically; it must satisfy itself regarding the merits. Crucially, the Court affirmed that documents involving financial and future obligations must be proved by producing two marginal witnesses as required by the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Since the Petitioners failed to produce these witnesses or the original records, they failed to prove the contract's execution. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no legal error in the concurrent findings, and imposed costs for filing a frivolous claim.
Questions settled- Can a court pass a decree mechanically in an ex parte proceeding without considering the merits of the case?
- Is the production of two marginal witnesses mandatory under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 for documents involving financial and future obligations?
- Does the failure to produce original records and marginal witnesses in court preclude the reliance on a document in a civil suit?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi &2023 SCP 128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit filed by the Federation of Pakistan for the recovery of Rs. 912,801.60/- due to an alleged breach of contract. Although the respondent was proceeded against ex parte, the Trial Court directed the petitioners to produce evidence to prove their claim. The Trial Court subsequently dismissed the suit, a decision upheld by both the appellate court and the High Court in revision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether an ex parte proceeding absolves a plaintiff from proving their case and the execution of financial documents. The Court held that even in ex parte proceedings, courts must not act mechanically and may require evidence to satisfy themselves. Furthermore, under Article 17(2)(a) and Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, any document creating financial or future obligations must be attested by at least two witnesses, and proving its execution requires the testimony of two marginal witnesses. Since the petitioners failed to produce the marginal witnesses or the original record, the concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld, and the petition was dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Can a court proceed to pass an ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without recording evidence, or is it required to evaluate the legal and factual aspects of the case?
- Is a party relying on a document pertaining to financial and future obligations required to produce its marginal witnesses to prove its execution even when the defendant is proceeded against ex parte?
- What is the legal consequence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 if a document creating financial obligations is produced by a representative who neither prepared nor attested it, without presenting the original record?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division_Chairman, _e5ddbc6e2023 SCP 198, 2023 SCMR 1421, 2023 PTD 1514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Forty-one civil appeals were heard by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Forty appeals involved the interpretation and application of Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 regarding provisional assessment and final determination of customs duty liability. The primary legal issue was whether the Collector of Customs was justified in extending the period for final assessment without establishing circumstances of an exceptional nature, and the consequence of failing to finalize the assessment within the statutorily stipulated timeline. The Supreme Court affirmed the consistent view of the High Courts, holding that under Section 81(4) of the Customs Act, 1969, provisional assessments automatically attain finality on the declared value if final determination is not completed within the prescribed period. Extensions cannot be granted as a matter of course and require exceptional circumstances to prevent indefinite delay and harassment of assessees. The additional single appeal regarding alleged misdeclaration under Section 32 was also dismissed on merits, finding no illegality in the High Court’s judgment.
Questions settled- Does a provisional assessment under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 automatically attain finality if the final determination is not finalized within the prescribed statutory period?
- Can the Collector of Customs extend the period for final determination of customs liability under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 as a matter of routine without recording circumstances of an exceptional nature?
- What is the effect on guarantees or additional amounts deposited by an importer when a provisional assessment becomes final by operation of Section 81(4) of the Customs Act, 1969?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice2023 SCP 295 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment that set aside the Parliamentary Committee’s decision to reject judicial nominations forwarded by the Judicial Commission. The core legal question addressed whether the Parliamentary Committee, established under Article 175A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, possesses the authority to review and decline nominations made by the Judicial Commission, and whether the Commission’s selection process was legally valid. The Supreme Court held that the Parliamentary Committee acts as a forum for democratic oversight and is empowered to reject nominations if the Commission’s proceedings lack transparency, objective criteria, or fail to consider all eligible candidates. The Court emphasized that the Judicial Commission performs an executive function and must operate as a collegium, not merely rubber-stamping subjective opinions. The judgment establishes that judicial appointments must be based on merit, transparency, and predetermined objective criteria. Consequently, the High Court’s decision was set aside, affirming that the Commission’s proceedings are subject to scrutiny when they fail to meet constitutional standards of fairness and procedural propriety.
Questions settled- Does the Parliamentary Committee have the authority to reject nominations forwarded by the Judicial Commission?
- Is the process of judicial appointment by the Judicial Commission subject to judicial review?
- Does the absence of predetermined objective criteria for judicial selection render the Judicial Commission's proceedings invalid?
- Is the Judicial Commission's function in appointing judges considered an executive function?
- Ghulam Ghous vs Province of Punjab through Secretary Higher Education2023 LHC 4149, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 493, 2023 PLJ Lahore 829 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged an order by the Higher Education Department, Government of the Punjab, which denied him age relaxation for the post of Registrar at a public university. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as a government employee, was entitled to the benefit of Rule 3(v) of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976, which allows for the exclusion of continuous government service from the computation of the upper age limit. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to this benefit, finding that the Rules of 1976 apply to 'Government servants' broadly, not merely 'civil servants,' and that employees of autonomous bodies like the university are considered to be in the service of the government. The Court ruled that the impugned order was illegal and discriminatory, directing that the petitioner's recommendation by the Search Committee be processed. The key principle established is that beneficial provisions in service rules should be interpreted to advance the remedy, and that employees of autonomous bodies performing government business qualify as government servants for the purpose of age relaxation.
Questions settled- Does Rule 3(v) of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976 apply to employees of autonomous bodies?
- Are employees of autonomous bodies considered government servants for the purpose of age relaxation rules?
- Should beneficial service rules be interpreted to advance the remedy for the employee?
- Is the Government College University, Faisalabad considered an autonomous body performing the business of the Government of the Punjab?
- Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Communications, Islamabad and another vs Shuja Sharif and others2023 SCMR 129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a challenge to a ban on motorcycles plying on motorways imposed by the National Highways and Motorway Police (NH&MP). The High Court had declared the ban illegal, holding that the right to use motorways fell under the 'quality of life' protected by Article 9 of the Constitution and that the authorities could only regulate, not restrict, usage. The Supreme Court, however, set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that Section 45 of the National Highways Safety Ordinance, 2000, explicitly empowers the Government or authorized agencies to prohibit or restrict specific classes of vehicles in the interest of public safety. The Court held that such restrictions do not violate fundamental rights under Articles 4 or 9, as they are measures taken in accordance with law to protect lives. The Court emphasized the principle of 'ut res magis valeat quam pereat', stating that statutes must be construed to remain effective and that reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia is constitutionally permissible.