Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Bisma Naureen/Ameer Jehan vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 SHC 88 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-06Read full judgment →
• Bilawal Hussain vs Mst. Farzana Kausar2023 LHC 4958 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-25Read full judgment →
• Bilal Hussain (Deceased) through L.Rs. vs President National Bank of Pakistan (NBP), Head Office, I.I. Chundrigarh Road, Karachi and other2023 PLC (C.S.) 155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-16
  compulsory retirementdisciplinary proceedingsbank employeeservice mattercompetent authoritypenalty disparity
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the compulsory retirement of a Bank Manager (the appellant) by the National Bank of Pakistan following disciplinary proceedings. The appellant challenged the penalty on grounds that no monetary loss was suffered by the Bank, that a co-accused received a lesser penalty, that no regular inquiry was conducted, and that the penalty order was issued by an incompetent authority. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions. The Court held that the appellant failed to substantiate claims regarding the absence of monetary loss or the lack of a regular inquiry, noting that the record confirmed both the loss and the conduct of a full-fledged inquiry. Regarding the penalty disparity, the Court affirmed that the appellant’s higher responsibility as Branch Manager justified a stricter penalty compared to the co-accused. Finally, the Court ruled that the communication of a penalty order by administrative officers on behalf of the 'authority' is standard practice and does not invalidate the order where the authority itself has made the decision. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the communication of a disciplinary penalty by administrative officers on behalf of an unnamed 'authority' invalidate the order?
  • Can a bank employee claim discrimination in sentencing when a co-accused with a lower rank receives a lesser penalty?
  • Is a regular inquiry report sufficient evidence to establish monetary loss in disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilal Ahmed vs The State and another2023 MLD 73 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-02
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryrapechild protectionDNA testingtentative assessmentmedical report
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a post-arrest bail application in a case involving allegations of rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 53 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010, and Section 3 of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting evidence and the applicability of the special child protection legislation. The court held that the medical report contradicted the complainant's version, noting an absence of physical injury or signs of abuse. Furthermore, the court observed that the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory DNA sampling requirements under Section 164-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the court found the applicability of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010, to be questionable at the current stage. Concluding that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court granted bail, emphasizing that bail is a transfer of custody, not an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to obtain DNA samples as required by Section 164-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a ground for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Is a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 established when medical evidence contradicts the complainant's allegations?
  • Does the grant of bail constitute an acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Bid Farooq vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior and others2023 PCRLJ 678 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-12
  protective bailpre-arrest bailproclaimed offenderconstitutional petitionbail maintainabilitypresence of accusedcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a circular regarding passport facilities and seeking protective pre-arrest bail in multiple criminal cases registered against the petitioner. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel restricted the prayer solely to the grant of protective ad-interim pre-arrest bail in various FIRs, as the petitioner was residing abroad and had been declared a proclaimed offender. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether protective pre-arrest bail can be granted to an accused who is not present in court and is abroad. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the physical presence of the accused in court is a mandatory statutory precondition under Section 498-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the grant of pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that without the personal presence of the accused before the court, a petition for pre-arrest bail—including protective bail—is not maintainable and cannot be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether protective pre-arrest bail can be granted to an accused who is abroad and not present in court?
  • Is the physical presence of the accused in court a mandatory precondition for the grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 498-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the distinct categories of pre-arrest bail recognized in criminal jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Bibi Sakina and another vs : Zakir Hussain alias Shah Wali and 3 others2023 YLR 1241 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-24
  appeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocencedelayed FIRsupplementary statementidentification paradebenefit of doubtmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court acquitting respondents of murder charges under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was intercepted and shot dead by unidentified assailants on motorcycles, whose names later surfaced through highly delayed supplementary statements and witness testimonies. The Balochistan High Court evaluated the evidence and found that the initial FIR was lodged against unknown persons without any physical descriptions, and the subsequent statements of eyewitnesses were recorded after unexplained, inordinate delays, rendering them unreliable and losing evidentiary value. The Court reiterated that an acquittal judgment carries a double presumption of innocence which cannot be dislodged lightly without exceptional and compelling reasons. Finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a supplementary statement and delayed eyewitness testimony recorded without plausible explanation?
  • Does an acquittal by a trial court carry a double presumption of innocence, and what standard of proof is required to interfere with it?
  • What is the effect of failing to give a description of unknown accused persons in the initial FIR upon a subsequent identification parade?
  • When is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Bibi Ayesha vs Muhammad Akbar and others2023 PLD Balochistan 56 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-26Read full judgment →
• Bhawal Khan vs The Province Of Sindh & Others2023 SHC 1146 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-23Read full judgment →
• Bhart Lal Thr. Attorney Kailash Kumar Panjani vs Muhammad Yousuf Polani, Yaqoob Polani2023 SHC 1012, 2024 YLR 1276 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-16Read full judgment →
• Better Engineered Solutions (Pvt.) Ltd. through authorized2023 PLD Islamabad 105 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-30Read full judgment →
• Behzad Hussain vs Bibi Ansa and 2 others2023 CLC 143 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-03Read full judgment →
• Basit Ali vs The State2023 PCRLJ 683 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-27
  narcotic substancessafe custodychain of custodybenefit of doubtindependent witnessescriminal appealacquittalchemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of five kilograms of charas. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the chain of custody for the recovered narcotics and whether the conviction could be sustained based solely on police testimony given the lack of independent witnesses and material contradictions. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and transmission of the narcotic samples, noting an unexplained ten-day delay in their delivery to the chemical examiner, which broke the chain of custody. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that while police testimony is admissible, the failure to associate independent witnesses in a public place, combined with material contradictions in the evidence, creates reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, rendering the chemical examiner's report unreliable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses in a recovery proceeding, despite their availability in a public place, render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Is the prosecution required to establish the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotic samples to the chemical examiner to secure a conviction?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the transmission of narcotic samples to the chemical examiner break the chain of custody?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of police officials when there are material contradictions and a failure to prove the chain of custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ali Shahzad vs The Bank of Punjab etc2023 LHC 367 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-24
  constitutional petitionmaster and servantstatutory rulesPEEDA Act 2006Bank of Punjabreinstatementservice grievancedue process
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Manager Operations at the Bank of Punjab, was dismissed from service following alleged involvement in fraudulent transactions. His internal appeals were rejected, leading him to file a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking reinstatement. The bank raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, contending that the relationship was governed by the master and servant rule as the bank's HR Manual consists of non-statutory service rules. The High Court analyzed the statutory nature of service rules and acknowledged that while the bank's internal HR Manual is non-statutory, the Government of Punjab holds a controlling share in the bank, making it a statutory entity subject to the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act 2006 (PEEDA). Since PEEDA overrides non-statutory service regulations by virtue of its non-obstante clause, the bank was legally required to conduct disciplinary proceedings under PEEDA. Holding the dismissal order unlawful for failure to adhere to statutory procedural safeguards, the High Court accepted the petition, set aside the dismissal, and reinstated the petitioner with back benefits, reserving the bank's right to initiate de novo proceedings under PEEDA.

  Questions settled

  • Does a constitutional petition lie against disciplinary action taken under non-statutory service rules where an overriding statutory law like PEEDA applies?
  • Does the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act 2006 apply to employees of the Bank of Punjab?
  • What constitutes a 'statutory rule' to oust the application of the principle of master and servant in service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ali Shahzad vs Bank of Punjab through President and 2 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1059 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-09
  Constitutional petitionMaster and servantService mattersStatutory rulesDisciplinary proceedingsPEEDAWrongful dismissalGovernment-controlled corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the dismissal of a Bank of Punjab employee, questioning the maintainability of the petition given the "master and servant" relationship. The core legal question was whether the Bank's internal HR Manual constituted statutory rules and whether the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA) applied to the Bank's employees. The Court held that while the Bank's HR Manual is non-statutory, the Bank is a government-controlled corporation subject to PEEDA. The Court determined that PEEDA acts as a legislative intervention that overrides internal service rules, mandating that disciplinary proceedings against such employees must strictly adhere to the statute's procedures. Consequently, the dismissal was set aside for non-compliance with PEEDA, and the petitioner was reinstated with back benefits, with liberty granted to the Bank to proceed de novo under the Act. The key principle laid down is that where a statute like PEEDA intervenes to regulate the terms and conditions of service in government-controlled corporations, the general "master and servant" principle is excluded, and the employer must strictly follow the statutory disciplinary procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 apply to employees of the Bank of Punjab?
  • Can an employee of a corporation governed by non-statutory service rules invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court if a special statute like PEEDA applies?
  • Does the principle of 'master and servant' apply when a statute intervenes to regulate the terms and conditions of employment?
  • Are the service bye-laws of the Bank of Punjab considered statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed, Mst. Sajeela Zakir vs Ahmed and four others, The State etc2023 LHC 1090 · Lahore High Court
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtforensic evidencepost-mortem reportocular testimonyaccidental deathburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the conflicting medical evidence and the defense's plea of accidental death due to self-inflicted firearm injury. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found the motive unproven, the ocular testimony unreliable due to the unexplained presence of witnesses, and the medical evidence manipulated, specifically regarding the presence of blackening around the entry wound. Furthermore, forensic analysis supported the possibility of a close-range accidental discharge rather than a distant shot by the appellant. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout and that a single reasonable doubt suffices for acquittal. The court dismissed the connected revision petition for enhancement of sentence and the petition against the acquittal of co-accused, reinforcing the principle that the prosecution must prove its case without relying on the weaknesses of the defense.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of a dead body from the accused's premises shift the burden of proof to the accused to explain the death?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive and the ocular testimony is found unreliable?
  • Is the manipulation of medical evidence by a doctor sufficient to cast doubt on the entire prosecution case?
  • Does the presence of blackening around a gunshot wound necessarily indicate a close-range fire?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs The State and another2023 SCMR 748 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-14
  pre-arrest baildishonor of chequefurther inquirydelay in FIRprivate dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arose from a pre-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was accused under Section 489F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for stopping payment on a cheque. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court of Pakistan were whether the unexplained delay in registering the First Information Report (FIR), the lack of proof regarding the underlying loan or obligation, and the petitioner's instruction to stop payment on the ground of unauthorized removal of the cheque made the case one of further inquiry, justifying the grant of pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting pre-arrest bail. The Court held that the inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the absence of proof showing the transfer of the disputed amount to the petitioner, constituted sufficient grounds for further inquiry. The Court established that where the ingredients of Section 489F are not prima facie established and the dispute is private, pre-arrest bail may be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained and inordinate delay in registering an FIR under Section 489F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the absence of proof regarding the underlying loan or financial obligation make a case under Section 489F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 one of further inquiry?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted where the accused instructed the bank to stop payment on a cheque on the ground that it was unauthorizedly removed from his possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Addl. District Judge, Hafizabad & others2023 SCP 344, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 67, 2024 PLJ SC 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-03
  maintenance decreegrandfather liabilityexecution proceedingsdue processfair trialfamily courtattachment of propertyIslamic law of maintenance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from execution proceedings where a minor grandchild, having obtained a maintenance decree against his father, sought to attach the property of his grandfather after failing to recover the decretal amount from the father. The executing court ordered attachment of the grandfather's property, and the High Court dismissed the grandfather's writ petition. The Supreme Court considered whether a maintenance decree against a father can be directly executed against a grandfather without a separate suit.

  The Supreme Court held that under Islamic law, a grandfather's liability to maintain his grandchild depends on two factual conditions: the father's poverty and the grandfather's financial ease. Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution mandate due process and a fair trial for the determination of civil obligations, which requires an opportunity to produce evidence. An executing court cannot modify a decree or execute it against a non-party. A maintenance decree against a father cannot be executed against a grandfather; a separate suit under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 must be instituted. The appeal was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a maintenance decree passed against a father be executed against the grandfather of a minor child?
  • Must a child institute a separate suit against their grandfather to claim maintenance when decretal amounts cannot be recovered from the father?
  • Can an executing court attach property of a person who was not a party to the original suit?
  • Does executing a decree against a non-party violate the rights to due process and fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali vs The State and another2023 MLD 60 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-17
  suspension of sentencejuvenile convictdelay in decision of appealstatutory ground for bailpost-arrest bailjuvenile justiceinterpretation of statutes
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the applicant, a convict tried and sentenced as a juvenile, seeking the suspension of his execution of sentence on merits and on the statutory ground of delay in the decision of his appeal. The applicant was convicted under sections 302(b), 324, 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the statutory provision for bail due to delay in trial under the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 applies to suspend a sentence during the pendency of an appeal, or whether appeals by juveniles are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 does not provide for the suspension of a convict's sentence during appeal, and such matters are governed by section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which requires the expiration of a two-year period for life imprisonment sentences before statutory suspension can be considered. The court laid down the principle that courts cannot read unlegislated rights into a statute, and the statutory ground for bail during a juvenile trial cannot be extended to convicts post-conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the statutory ground for bail due to delay in trial under section 6(5) of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 be extended to suspend the sentence of a juvenile convict during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Does a High Court have the jurisdiction to read into a statute a right or provision that has not been enacted by the legislature?
  • Which legal provisions govern an appeal filed by a person convicted by a Juvenile Court?
  • What is the applicable statutory period under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for considering the suspension of a life sentence on the ground of delay in the decision of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali and another vs Muhammad Arif and others2023 PLD Lahore 699 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
• Baseerat Dad Khan Lodhi and others vs Farhat Dad Khan Lodhi and others, Karachi Development Authority, Muhammad Samad2023 SHC 268 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Barkhurdar vs The State and another2023 SCP 245, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 45, 2023 SCMR 1791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-06-09
  narcoticspoppy plantpoppy strawdodabenefit of the doubtcriminal appealillegal possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court which maintained the petitioner's conviction and sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged recovery of ten kilograms of poppy plants. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution successfully established that the recovered material constituted a prohibited narcotic substance within the meaning of the law, specifically distinguishing between poppy straw as a whole plant and the narcotic-bearing 'doda' or capsule. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments, and acquitted the petitioner. The holding establishes that every part of the mowed poppy plant except seeds is termed poppy straw, but only the capsule, pouch, or 'doda' contains the narcotic substance, and stems or leaves are frequently used as animal fodder. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must specifically prove the exact nature and composition of the recovered material, and any ambiguity regarding whether the substance falls within the penal provisions of the statute must be resolved in favor of the accused by extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does every part of a mowed poppy plant constitute a narcotic substance under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997?
  • Whether the stems and leaves of a poppy plant used as animal fodder fall within the definition of prohibited narcotics?
  • What specific part of the poppy plant contains the narcotic substance necessary to determine the quantum of punishment under Section 9 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt when the prosecution fails to establish the exact nature and composition of the recovered poppy plant?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ullah vs The State & another2023 PHC 448 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-11Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali Mahesar vs The State2023 SHC 1092 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-29
  post-arrest bailmisappropriation of public fundsprohibitory clausefurther inquirywheat procurementanti-corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, an Incharge at a Wheat Procurement Center, sought post-arrest bail regarding allegations of misappropriating 4,860 metric tons of wheat valued at Rs. 243 million during the 2020/2021 stock season. The applicant argued innocence, citing delayed FIR lodgment and the existence of a separate NAB reference, contending the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the magnitude of public money misappropriated and distinguishing the current case from the separate NAB reference involving a different stock season. The Court held that the misappropriation of public funds on such a large scale affects society at large, placing the offence within the exceptional clause of bail considerations. It further noted that the delay in FIR lodgment was natural given the nature of the investigation required. Finding reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was guilty, the Court dismissed the bail application, ruling that it would be premature to accept the plea of false implication at this stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the misappropriation of public funds on a large scale bring an offence within the exceptional clause for bail?
  • Is a delay in the lodgment of an FIR regarding the misappropriation of public funds sufficient grounds for the grant of bail?
  • Can a separate NAB reference regarding a different time period be used to claim false implication in a current criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Barclays Bank UK PLC vs Philipp2023 SCMR 1457 · Supreme Court of United Kingdom · 2023-07-12Read full judgment →
• Bannu vs Mst. Safia Begum2023 PHC 287, 2024 CLC 1793 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-21Read full judgment →
• Bankers Equity Limited through Official Liquidator vs Galadari Cement2023 CLD 253 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-19Read full judgment →
• Bank Alfalah Limited, Lahore through Muhammad Rafiq and Syed Aqeel2023 CLD 14 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-13Read full judgment →
• Bank Al-Habib Limited through Branch Manager vs Messrs Rafi Cotton2023 CLD 154 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-13Read full judgment →
• Ch. Khalid Yousaf vs Azad Jammu And Kashmir Government2023 SC AJK 70, 2024 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 110 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-10-04
  Custodian of Evacuee Propertyjudicial office statuscompetence of appealservice terms and conditionsdiscriminatory treatmentequality before lawlegal advisor
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals challenging a High Court judgment regarding the service terms of the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The core legal questions addressed whether an appeal filed by a 'Legal Advisor' is competent, whether the Custodian holds a status equivalent to a High Court Judge, and whether the government’s unilateral reduction of the Custodian's privileges was discriminatory. The Supreme Court held that an appeal filed by a Legal Advisor, rather than the Advocate-General or designated law officers, is incompetent and must be dismissed. Regarding the merits, the Court affirmed that the office of the Custodian of Evacuee Property is a judicial office equivalent to that of a High Court Judge, entitling the incumbent to corresponding pay and privileges. Consequently, the government’s notification reducing these terms was declared discriminatory and ultra vires. Furthermore, the Court set aside an additional note by a High Court judge that created ambiguity, ruling that once a bench reaches a consensus, additional notes contradicting that consensus are superfluous. The judgment reinforces the principle of equality before the law and the sanctity of judicial office status.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal filed by a legal advisor, rather than the Advocate-General or a law officer, competent?
  • Does the office of the Custodian of Evacuee Property hold a status equivalent to a High Court Judge?
  • Can the government unilaterally reduce the pay and privileges of the Custodian of Evacuee Property without violating the principle of equality?
  • Should an additional note by a judge that contradicts the consensus of a bench be set aside to ensure clarity?
  Read full judgment →
• Bandenawaz (Private) Limited Through Director vs Federation of Pakistan2023 PLD Balochistan 98, 2024 PLJ Quetta 150 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Balach vs Imtiaz-Ul-Haq and others2023 YLR 12 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-25Read full judgment →
• Bakhtiar Mahmud Kasuri vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2023 CLC 2010 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-20Read full judgment →
• Bakhti Rahman vs The State and another2023 SCMR 1068 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-15
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyShajjah-i-hashimahprohibitory clausetentative assessmentparity of treatment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from the Peshawar High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's post-arrest bail application. The petitioner was charged under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-A(iii), 337-F(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly causing a head injury to the complainant with a sharp object, resulting in a fractured frontal bone. The petitioner argued for bail based on the rule of consistency, as co-accused persons had been released on bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's role was clearly distinguishable from that of the co-accused, as he was attributed the specific, effective role of causing the fatal head injury. The Court reiterated that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the evidence is required. Since the injury under Section 337-A(iii) carries a punishment of up to ten years' imprisonment, it falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The rule of consistency only applies when the cases are analogous in all respects.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply to grant bail to an accused whose specific role in causing a fatal injury is distinguishable from that of the co-accused?
  • What is the scope of the court's assessment of evidence when deciding a post-arrest bail application?
  • Does an offence under Section 337-A(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakhtawar Bibi vs Additional District Judge and 2 others2023 PLJ Lahore 376 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-31Read full judgment →
• Bakht Biland vs The State2023 PHC 22 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-25Read full judgment →
• Bakht Biland vs Sarbiland and 2 others2023 YLR 2487 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-25
  criminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubtocular evidencedishonest improvementfabricated FIRmedical evidencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge/MCTC, Kolai Pallas, under sections 302(b), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the ocular evidence and the circumstances surrounding the FIR. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution case was fabricated, noting that the alleged complainant had succumbed to injuries before the police arrived, rendering the FIR a post-facto creation. Furthermore, the court identified significant discrepancies in the medical evidence, the site plan, and the motive, while observing that the eye-witnesses made dishonest improvements to their statements. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that when ocular evidence suffers from willful improvements and the prosecution's narrative is inconsistent with the medical and physical evidence, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, and a conviction cannot be sustained on tainted evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when ocular evidence suffers from dishonest improvements?
  • Is a conviction valid when the prosecution's narrative is contradicted by medical evidence and site plan discrepancies?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Does the fabrication of an FIR and manipulation of inquest reports entitle an accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakht Bahadur and others vs Muhammad Saeed2023 PHC 8 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-20Read full judgment →
• Bakht Ali s/o Munawar Ali Bozdar vs The State2023 SHC 445 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-05
  narcoticssafe custodychain of custodybenefit of doubtchemical examiner reportcriminal appealnarcotic substance
  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 possession of 1300 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and safe transmission of the recovered narcotic substance to the Chemical Examiner. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody of the parcel in the malkhana and its subsequent transmission, as the relevant police officials, including the Moharrar and the dispatcher, were not produced as witnesses. Furthermore, significant contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the timing of the incident cast doubt on the occurrence. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that in narcotics cases, the prosecution must strictly prove every step from recovery to laboratory analysis. The key principle laid down is that any missing link in the chain of custody, or failure to produce officials responsible for safe custody and transmission, entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the Moharrar who kept the narcotic sample in safe custody entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Is the prosecution required to establish the entire chain of custody from the recovery of narcotics to their delivery to the chemical examiner?
  • Can a conviction be sustained under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 if the prosecution fails to prove the safe transmission of the sample to the chemical laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakht Alam Khan vs Waseem Khan and others2023 PLD Peshawar 78 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-04Read full judgment →
• Bahria Town (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Mirza Zahid Iqbal and others2023 IHC 288 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-07-04Read full judgment →
• Bagga etc. vs State etc.PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 94 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-11Read full judgment →
• Bagan Khan vs Muhammad Ibrahim Buriro & others2023 SHC 876 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-18Read full judgment →
• Badshah Jan Wazeer vs State through Assistant Commissioner Khanpur2023 YLR 1288 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-03Read full judgment →
• Badaruddin Lashari vs The State2023 SHC 936 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-13
  narcotics possessioncharassafe custody of narcoticsofficial witnessesrecovery memochain of custodyControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against a conviction judgment for narcotics possession. The appellants were convicted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possessing a large quantity of charas. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt despite the absence of independent witnesses, whether the complainant acting as the investigating officer vitiated the trial, and whether the chain of custody for the recovered narcotics was compromised. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants through consistent, reliable, and confidence-inspiring testimony from official witnesses, which remained unshaken during cross-examination. The Court affirmed that police officials are competent witnesses and that the absence of independent witnesses does not invalidate a recovery, especially given the judicial recognition of public reluctance to testify in narcotics cases. Furthermore, the Court held that a police officer is not prohibited from investigating a case they initiated, provided no prejudice is caused to the accused. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Can a police officer who acts as the complainant in a narcotics case also serve as the investigating officer?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses in a narcotics recovery invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the testimony of police officials sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 exclude the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Bachando vs The State2023 YLR 2622 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-18
  narcotics possessionchain of custodysafe transitchemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtpolice testimonycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 2000 grams of charas. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution established the chain of custody for the recovered narcotics and whether the conviction could be sustained given the lack of independent witnesses and material contradictions in police testimony. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and secure transmission of the narcotics to the Chemical Examiner, noting an unexplained five-day delay. Furthermore, the court found significant discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence and the absence of independent witnesses despite the recovery occurring in a public area. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the chain of custody must be unbroken and secure for a Chemical Examiner’s report to be admissible; any gap in this chain, or any single reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case, entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner break the chain of custody?
  • Is the testimony of police officials sufficient for conviction in the absence of independent witnesses in a public place?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to establish the safe custody and safe transit of recovered narcotics?
  • Does a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitle an accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Bacha Khan S/o Abdul Jalil vs State2023 SHC 493 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-27Read full judgment →
• Babul Ali S/O Iqbal & Ors vs The State2023 SHC 886 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-06
  post-arrest bailrobberyfurther inquirybenefit of the doubtprohibitory clausecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by three applicants seeking bail in FIR No. 261 of 2023 under Sections 397/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Awami Colony, Karachi. The core legal question revolves around whether reasonable grounds exist to connect the applicants to the alleged robbery, particularly considering that the FIR was initially against unknown persons, the offense under Section 392 subsequently added does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and questions regarding the veracity of the alleged recoveries and illegal detention prior to formal production. The Sindh High Court held that the case calls for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that tentative assessment reveals doubts regarding the applicability of Section 397, the planted nature of recoveries, and the absence of prior identification. The court laid down the principle that benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused even at the bail stage and that bail cannot be withheld as a punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offense not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitles the accused to bail as a rule?
  • Can the benefit of doubt regarding alleged recoveries be extended in favor of the accused at the post-arrest bail stage?
  • Whether delayed production of the accused before the court casts doubt on the bona fides of police actions and subsequent recoveries for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Azra Bibi vs General Manager, Personnel (CPO) Pakistan Railways HQ, Lahore and others2023 SCMR 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-10
  service appealregularization of servicesurvival of cause of actionactio personalis moritur cum personalegal heirscivil servantFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the service appeal filed by the petitioner, widow of a deceased Pakistan Railways employee. The core question was whether a widow can file a service appeal after her husband's death seeking retrospective regularization of his service from his initial appointment date, when the deceased never agitated the matter during his lifetime. The Supreme Court held that the personal right to sue regarding terms and conditions of service dies with the civil servant under the maxim 'actio personalis moritur cum persona', and legal heirs cannot institute a fresh service appeal after the employee's death for a cause of action that was never set into motion by the employee during his lifetime. The key principle laid down is that a service appeal before the Service Tribunal can only be filed by the civil servant, and personal causes of action regarding service matters do not survive for the legal heirs to initiate fresh proceedings post-mortem.

  Questions settled

  • Whether legal heirs can file a fresh service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal after the death of a civil servant for a grievance regarding service terms that the deceased never agitated during his lifetime?
  • Does a personal cause of action concerning service matters survive after the death of a civil servant to be initiated by his legal representatives?
  • What is the scope of filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 by persons other than the civil servant himself?
  Read full judgment →
• Azmat Jahan vs Additional District Judge and 2 others2023 MLD 92 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-08Read full judgment →
• Azizullah vs The Inspector General of Police Balochistan, Central Police2023 PLC (C.S.) 100 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-04
  constitutional petitionpolice recruitmentphysical standardsheight measurementservice matterpolice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an eligible candidate seeking appointment as an Inspector Police after being declared physically unfit due to short height during the recruitment process. The core legal question was whether the petitioner met the mandatory physical standards prescribed for recruitment under the relevant rules and whether interference was warranted. The Balochistan High Court held that since the petitioner's height was found to be below the mandatory requirement of five feet and seven inches stipulated by the rules, and no general or special relaxation had been sanctioned by the competent authority, he was not entitled to the relief claimed. Consequently, the constitution petition was dismissed and the interim order was recalled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate failing to meet the mandatory height requirement under the Police Rules can claim appointment as a police inspector?
  • Can physical standards prescribed for police recruits be relaxed without the sanction of the Deputy Inspector General?
  • Whether an erroneous measurement by one committee creates a vested right for appointment when subsequent inquiry confirms disqualification?
  Read full judgment →
• Azizullah Khan vs Member (Admn), Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad2023 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 143 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service appealproforma promotionseniority disputecontinuing cause of actionvoid orderlimitationdiscrimination in promotionspeaking order
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a retired Inspector (BS-14), filed an appeal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, challenging the promotion of a junior private respondent to the post of Deputy Superintendent (BS-15) in 2010 and the failure of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to consider his own case for promotion. The core legal question concerned whether the appellant was wrongfully superseded due to flawed seniority assignment and non-consideration of his departmental representations, and whether a retired civil servant could be granted proforma promotion. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the FBR acted discriminatorily by altering seniority without a speaking order and failing to decide the appellant's representations, thereby creating a continuing cause of action against which limitation did not run. The Tribunal set aside the adverse seniority assignment as void and directed the FBR to place the appellant's case before the relevant promotion committee for consideration on merits in accordance with applicable rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does limitation run against a void order regarding seniority assignment?
  • Whether the failure to decide a civil servant's departmental representation creates a continuing cause of action?
  • Can a civil servant claim proforma promotion and consideration after retirement when wrongfully bypassed for promotion during service?
  • Is an order altering seniority without a speaking order legally sustainable under the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz Khan vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 1806 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-20
  narcotics controlexhibiting documentsforensic science agency reportbenefit of doubtcriminal appealnarcotic substancesacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for possessing 10 kilograms and 200 grams of charas. The core legal question revolves around the admissibility and evidentiary value of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency report when it was annexed to the record but never formally exhibited during the trial. The Lahore High Court held that a document, including a forensic report, can only be read in evidence if it is relevant, admissible, and formally exhibited in accordance with the prescribed legal procedures and rules. The Court laid down that failure to exhibit the forensic report during the trial renders the recovery of the narcotic substance inconsequential, creating a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case and entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt resulting in acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a forensic report that was annexed to the judicial record but never formally exhibited during trial be read into evidence against an accused?
  • What is the legal effect on a narcotics prosecution when the relevant Punjab Forensic Science Agency report is not formally tendered and exhibited in evidence?
  • Does the failure to exhibit a forensic report render the recovery of the alleged narcotic substance inconsequential to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Javaid vs Malik Mushtaq Noor2023 LHC 5955, 2024 YLR 445 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-21Read full judgment →
• Azhar Hussain Banvi, Assistant Engineer (BPS-17), Local Government a_ee2c80e72023 SC AJK 62 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-09-12
  service tribunalfinal orderadditional chargeseniority listterms and conditions of servicecivil servantleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 18.08.2023, which accepted an appeal filed by contesting respondents and set aside a notification dated 07.09.2022. The core legal question revolves around whether an order assigning an additional charge of a higher post to a junior employee constitutes a 'final order' under Section 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, making it appealable, and whether the concept of 'additional charge' is recognized under civil service laws. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal committed no illegality in setting aside the notification, observing that prolonged temporary arrangements adversely affect the terms and conditions of civil servants and that the term 'additional charge' lacks explicit recognition under the relevant appointment rules. The key principles laid down are that an order determining rights and concluding a controversy for a particular forum qualifies as a final order, and that civil service laws do not countenance indefinite temporary arrangements or patronage systems that impede rightful promotions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order assigning an additional charge to a civil servant constitutes a final order under Section 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975?
  • Can a civil servant challenge an interim or temporary posting order before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the concept of 'additional charge' find recognition under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar ali vs SP Complaint Cell Jamshoro and others2023 SHC 1000 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-01Read full judgment →
• Azeem-Ud-Din vs Feroze Khan etc.PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 543 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-20
  bail cancellationpre-arrest baildishonoured chequelocus standicompromise settlementrevisional powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the son of the deceased complainant seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent in a case under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The bail was originally granted based on a compromise settlement wherein the respondent undertook to pay the remaining debt but subsequently defaulted. The core legal question concerned the locus standi of a non-complainant petitioner to file for bail cancellation and the consequences of breaching a bail-granting settlement. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner, as an interested party and son of the deceased complainant, had the locus standi to maintain the application, and that the powers under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are wide and akin to revisional powers. The court established that conditional bail granted upon a compromise is liable to be recalled if the accused defaults on the terms of the settlement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a private person who is not the original complainant has the locus standi to file an application for the cancellation of bail?
  • Can bail granted on the basis of a compromise settlement be cancelled upon the accused's default in fulfilling the terms of the settlement?
  • What is the nature and scope of the powers conferred upon the High Court and Court of Sessions under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a court initiate proceedings for the cancellation of bail on its own motion in the absence of an application by a party?
  Read full judgment →
• Azeem-ud-Din vs Feroze Khan etc2023 LHC 466, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 543, 2024 PCRLJ 1364 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-20
  bail cancellationpre-arrest baillocus standidishonoured chequecompromiseconditional bailrevisional powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application filed under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the son of the deceased complainant for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent in a case concerning the dishonour of a cheque under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent had originally secured pre-arrest bail on the basis of a compromise wherein he undertook to pay a specified sum in installments but subsequently defaulted. The respondent challenged the maintainability of the application, arguing that the petitioner lacked locus standi as he was not the original complainant. The Lahore High Court held that powers under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are akin to revisional powers and that any concerned person vitally interested in the prosecution, including a close relative of a deceased complainant, has the locus standi to move for bail cancellation. The court further held that where bail is granted subject to a conditional settlement and the accused defaults on the agreed terms, the bail is liable to be recalled. Consequently, the bail was cancelled.

  Questions settled

  • Who has the locus standi to file an application for the cancellation of bail under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are the powers of a High Court or Court of Sessions to cancel bail under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 akin to revisional powers?
  • Can bail granted on the basis of a compromise settlement be cancelled if the accused defaults on the fulfillment of the settlement terms?
  • Does section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit a court to cancel bail on its own motion in the absence of a formal application?
  Read full judgment →
• Azeem Khan and another vs The State2023 YLR 1447 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-03
  post-arrest bailHawalaHundiForeign Exchange Regulation Actprohibitory clausefinancial crimebail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by two individuals accused of involvement in illegal foreign currency exchange and Hawala/Hundi activities under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who were found at the premises during a raid but claimed to be mere employees, were entitled to bail given the nature of the offence. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail. The Court observed that the primary culpability for the alleged financial crimes lay with the absconding co-accused, who were the owners of the business, and that there was no evidence of unusual financial transactions in the petitioners' bank accounts. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offence under section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the maximum punishment is five years. Consequently, absent exceptional circumstances, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted to employees found at premises used for illegal Hawala/Hundi activities if the primary culpability rests with the absconding owners?
  Read full judgment →
• Azeem Khan and another vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary2023 MLD 1611 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
• Azeem Ahmed Siddiqui vs Syed A. Mohiuddin and Two Others2023 SHC 1032 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-24Read full judgment →
• Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through Secretary Inland Revenue, _e4bb27af2023 SC AJK 6 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Azad Govt. Through Secretary Electricity, Azad Govt. Of The State Of_f2b2da232023 SC AJK 64 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-09-13
  service lawdisciplinary inquiryconflict of interestbiascivil servantmisconductde novo inquiryimpartiality
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Service Tribunal which directed a de novo inquiry into the dismissal of a civil servant for alleged financial misconduct. The core legal question was whether the appointment of an individual facing charges of financial misappropriation as the Chairman of the Inquiry Committee vitiated the proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the Service Tribunal's decision, refusing leave to appeal. The Court held that the appointment of a person facing corruption charges to lead an inquiry into similar allegations creates an inherent conflict of interest, compromises the integrity and impartiality of the investigation, and undermines public trust in the administrative process. The Court emphasized that fairness and transparency are essential for any disciplinary inquiry. Consequently, the Court affirmed the requirement for a fresh inquiry, granting the authorities a specific timeframe to complete the process in accordance with the applicable rules, ensuring that the investigative body remains free from bias and conflict.

  Questions settled

  • Does the appointment of an individual facing charges of financial misconduct as the Chairman of an Inquiry Committee vitiate the disciplinary proceedings?
  • Can a Service Tribunal order a de novo inquiry if the initial inquiry committee was improperly constituted due to a conflict of interest?
  • Does the presence of a conflict of interest in an inquiry committee member violate the principles of fairness and transparency in disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Secretary2023 SC AJK 16 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-03-06
  payment of salaryfundamental rightsservice lawad-hoc appointmentemployer obligationsIslamic jurisprudenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding the payment of outstanding salaries to Junior Computer Teachers appointed on an ad-hoc basis in the Education Department of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in directing the departmental authorities to pay salaries to incumbents for the period they had served, particularly in light of arguments concerning the misinterpretation of statements made by a Law Officer. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court held that the payment of salary for services rendered is a fundamental right of an employee and a legal obligation of the employer, which cannot be withheld or delayed. Relying on both general legal principles and Islamic jurisprudence—specifically the injunction to pay a worker before their sweat dries—the Court affirmed that wages are a basic right, not an act of benevolence. Consequently, the employer is duty-bound to ensure timely payment in accordance with employment terms, and the High Court’s direction to pay the accrued salaries was deemed lawful and interference-free.

  Questions settled

  • Is the payment of salary for services rendered considered a fundamental right of an employee?
  • Can an employer withhold or delay the payment of wages for services already performed by an employee?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to direct a department to pay outstanding salaries to employees who have served in that department?
  Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of The State of Jammu And Kashmir through Chief2023 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 6 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-10-04Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of The State of Jammu & Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and others vs Rashid Afraz and others2023 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 69, 2023 PSC 44 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir & others vs Imran2023 SC AJK 22 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-04-10
  Service TribunalDisciplinary inquiryDe-novo inquiryStatutory time limitCivil servantRepeal of statuteService appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment of the Service Tribunal which set aside a disciplinary order against a civil servant and directed a de-novo inquiry. The core legal question concerned whether the inquiry proceedings, which exceeded the statutory time limits prescribed under the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001, were legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal correctly identified procedural flaws, specifically the failure of the Inquiry Officer to submit findings within the mandatory 60-day period. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, noting that the inquiry process lacked legal sanctity. Furthermore, the Court observed that the 2001 Act had been repealed by the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2019. Consequently, the Court ruled that all pending disciplinary matters, including the ordered de-novo inquiry, must henceforth be governed by the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977. The principle established is that disciplinary inquiries must strictly adhere to statutory timeframes, and upon the repeal of special legislation, proceedings must transition to the applicable general civil service rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inquiry officer's failure to submit a report within the statutory 60-day period render the disciplinary proceedings illegal?
  • Under which legal framework must a de-novo disciplinary inquiry be conducted following the repeal of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001?
  • Are disciplinary matters pending under the repealed Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001, required to be governed by the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayub Mti Abbottabad and another vs Atiq-ur-Rehman and other2023 PHC 336 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-24Read full judgment →
• Ayesha Zafar vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Narcotics Control and 7 others2023 PTD 174 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
• Ayesha Tahir vs Additional District & Sessions Judge, etc2023 LHC 434 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-19Read full judgment →
• Ayesha Hashmat Kamal and 2 Others vs Additional District Judge and 22023 LHC 5606, 2024 CLC 141 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-01Read full judgment →
• Ayaz, etc., Province of Sindh through its Secretary Forest & Wildlife2023 SCP 374, 2024 SCMR 101, 2024 PLJ SC 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-27
  age relaxationpublic service commissionrecruitment processcivil servantsadministrative lawstipendiary candidatesprovincial quota
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to a High Court judgment that set aside a selection process for Assistant Conservator of Forests (BPS-17) posts conducted by the Sindh Public Service Commission. The selection process was marred by subsequent changes to the advertisement, including an increase in the number of posts and a blanket fifteen-year upper age relaxation granted via a government notification, which deviated from the established Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974. The Supreme Court observed that the Rules provide specific, limited authority for age relaxation based on the seniority of the official granting it, whereas the blanket notification appeared to bypass these statutory constraints. Furthermore, the Court noted irregularities regarding the inclusion of 'stipendiary candidates' not mentioned in the original advertisement. Due to the inability of the provincial law officer to adequately address these legal discrepancies, the Court refrained from deciding the merits immediately, instead ordering the relevant provincial authorities to file concise statements addressing the legality of the age relaxation and the procedural changes made to the recruitment process.

  Questions settled

  • Does a blanket age relaxation notification violate the specific age relaxation limits prescribed under Rule 12 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1974?
  • Can the terms of a public service advertisement be arbitrarily changed after publication without issuing a fresh advertisement?
  • Is it legally permissible to introduce 'stipendiary candidates' into a recruitment process for government posts when the original advertisement did not specify such a category?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Mehmood vs Musadaq Riaz & 2 Others2023 LHC 1010, 2024 CLC 357 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-13Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Hussain vs The State2023 YLR 242 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-07
  narcoticssafe custody of samplechain of custodyindependent mashirsbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession and sale of 4000 grams of charas. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt despite the failure to associate independent private witnesses during a recovery from a populated area, material contradictions in the testimony of police witnesses, and an unexplained delay in sending the recovered substance to the chemical examiner, thereby breaking the chain of safe custody and transit. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove safe custody and transit of the narcotics and that material contradictions coupled with the absence of independent mashirs rendered the police testimony untrustworthy. The court laid down the principle that a break or gap in the chain of custody compromises the chemical examiner's report, and a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in dispatching recovered narcotic samples to the chemical examiner vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Whether the omission to associate independent private mashirs during a recovery from a public place affects the credibility of police witnesses?
  • Is the prosecution required to establish an unbroken and safe chain of custody from the point of seizure to the testing of the sample?
  • Does a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused entitle them to acquittal as of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Awwal Modaraba Management Limited and 3 Others_ In the matter of vs Not2023 CLD 624 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-02Read full judgment →
• Awal Khan vs The State2023 SHC 397 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-08
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsconscious knowledgefurther inquirypossession of contrabandcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arises from a narcotics case where the applicant was arrested while traveling as a passenger in an oil tanker from which 15 kilograms of opium were recovered. The core legal question was whether a passenger in a vehicle containing narcotics, without evidence of personal possession or conscious knowledge of the contraband, is entitled to post-arrest bail. The court held that where there is no evidence connecting the passenger to the driver or the contraband, and where nothing was recovered from the applicant's personal possession, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under the law. The court emphasized that the mere presence of an individual in a vehicle used for transporting narcotics does not automatically establish conscious knowledge or a nexus with the offense at the bail stage. Consequently, the court granted bail, determining that the applicant's culpability required further inquiry to be resolved at trial, thereby distinguishing the case from precedents where a nexus was established.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of a passenger in a vehicle used for narcotics transportation establish conscious knowledge of the contraband?
  • Is a passenger entitled to bail when no narcotics are recovered from their personal possession and no nexus with the driver is established?
  • When does a narcotics case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Awais Gohar vs Sumaira Adnan & 2 others2023 LHC 5618, 2024 CLC 251 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-05Read full judgment →
• Aviserv Limited vs Civil Aviation Authority2023 SHC 862 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Yasin etc vs Hussain Bakhsh etc2023 LHC 773 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-21Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Jehangiri and 8 others vs Tehsil Municipal Administration2023 CLC 320 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-27Read full judgment →
• Augusta Acquisition B.v and Uber Technologies Inc vs Competition2023 CLD 1461 · Competition Appellate Tribunal · 2022-06-22Read full judgment →
• Attiq-Ur-Rehman vs Sh. Tahir Mehmood and others2023 PLJ SC 371, 2023 PSC 38 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-26
  interim ordersupreme court interferenceconstitutional petitionpiecemeal litigationleave to appealdiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the interim orders passed by the High Court, which granted interim relief to Respondent No. 1 in a constitutional petition challenging the initiation of a fresh inquiry against him after he had allegedly stood exonerated in three previous inquiries. The core legal question is whether the Supreme Court should interfere with interlocutory orders passed by the High Court granting interim relief. The Supreme Court held that it is the settled policy not to readily interfere in interim orders unless the relief granted is arbitrary, unreasonable, reflects an abuse of power, or results in a miscarriage of justice. Finding no such grave illegality, abuse of process, or gross injustice in the impugned order, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave. The key principle laid down is that piecemeal litigation is discouraged and appellate interference in interim orders of the High Court will only occur in exceptional cases involving demonstrable perversity or gross injustice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will readily interfere with interim orders passed by the High Court?
  • Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court interfere with an interlocutory order granting interim relief?
  • Is piecemeal adjudication of matters before the final decision of the High Court encouraged?
  Read full judgment →
• Attiq Ur Rehman vs Sh. Tahir Mehmood and others2023 SCMR 501 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-26
  interim orderleave to appealpiecemeal adjudicationconstitutional petitionChief Minister's Inspection Teaminterim reliefdiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition seeking leave to appeal against an interim order passed by the High Court in a constitutional petition. Respondent No. 1 had approached the High Court challenging the initiation of an inquiry by the Chief Minister's Inspection Team on charges from which he had previously been exonerated across three separate inquiries, arguing lack of lawful authority. The High Court had issued notices and granted interim relief directing that no adverse orders be passed against him. The Supreme Court considered whether it should interfere with the High Court's discretionary interim order. Reaffirming established jurisprudence against piecemeal adjudication, the Supreme Court held that it is the settled policy not to readily interfere with interim orders unless they are arbitrary, unreasonable, reflect abuse of power, or constitute a wanton exercise of discretion resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Finding no grave illegality, abuse of process, or gross injustice in the impugned interim order, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an interim order passed by the High Court?
  • Whether piecemeal adjudication of cases before the High Court is discouraged by the Supreme Court?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere in an interim order where there is no grave illegality, abuse of process, or gross injustice?
  Read full judgment →
• Attaullah vs Ghazanrafullah & Others2023 PHC 528, 2025 PLD Peshawar 45 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-02Read full judgment →
• Attaullah and another vs The State2023 MLD 1435 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-10
  circumstantial evidenceconfessional statementjuvenile offendergrave and sudden provocationunnatural actdisappearance of evidencereduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  The criminal jail appeals arose from a common judgment wherein the appellants were convicted by the trial court under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentenced to life imprisonment along with compensation. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value of judicial confessional statements recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the rule that a confessional statement must be taken as a whole, and whether the proven motive of sexual assault brought the case within the mitigating exceptions of section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution relied primarily on circumstantial evidence and judicial confessions, which established that the crime was committed due to repeated sexual assaults on the juvenile appellant. Applying the principle that a confession must be accepted as a whole, the court converted the conviction of the first appellant from section 302(b) to section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing his sentence. Regarding the second appellant, who did not participate in the murder but assisted in concealing evidence, the court set aside his murder conviction and instead convicted him under section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principles laid down are that a confessional statement cannot be used in piecemeal against an accused and that continuous sexual abuse leading to homicide attracts the lesser punishment under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Can a judicial confessional statement be accepted in part and rejected in part for the purpose of convicting an accused?
  • Whether repeated sexual assault by the deceased on the accused can constitute a mitigating circumstance bringing the case within the purview of Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the standard of proof required when the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and confessional statements?
  • Is an accused who merely conceals evidence of a crime properly punishable under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than for the primary murder charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta ul Mustafa vs The State and another2023 SCP 239, 2023 SCMR 1698 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-08-11
  zinarapevictim testimonyDNA reportcorroborative evidencebenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the petitioner under Section 376 PPC for committing rape (zina). The Trial Court sentenced the petitioner to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, which was subsequently maintained by the High Court. The core legal questions pertained to the evidentiary value of the uncorroborated testimony of a rape victim, the reliability and evidentiary weight of a DNA test report, and the standards required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in sexual offence prosecutions. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, acquitting the petitioner. The Court held that while conviction can be based solely on the victim's testimony in sexual offence cases, such testimony must be independent, unbiased, and straightforward; if implausible or doubtful, corroboration is required. The Court further laid down that a DNA report serves merely as corroborative evidence rather than primary evidence, and where the primary testimony lacks credibility, inconclusive or dubious corroborative material cannot sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for a sexual offence be based solely on the victim's uncorroborated testimony?
  • Whether a DNA test report constitutes primary evidence or merely corroborative evidence in criminal cases?
  • What is the effect of implausible victim testimony and prior false or settled complaints on the credibility of the prosecution case?
  • Does a single reasonable doubt entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd2023 LHC 3392 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-09Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. through Manager2023 CLD 1468 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-09Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs Addl. District Judge, etc2023 LHC 2639 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-11Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad and 2 others vs The State2023 MLD 1795 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-21
  criminal appealdying declarationreasonable doubtbenefit of doubtocular evidenceidentification paradeacquittalmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court upon the appellants for murder and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies between the deceased's dying declaration and the complainant’s ocular testimony, and the lack of reliable identification. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the deceased’s dying declaration implicated only an absconding co-accused and omitted the appellants, contradicting the complainant's version of events. Furthermore, the court found the identification parade unreliable and the recovery of weapons suspect. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. If a reasonable doubt arises in the prosecution's evidence, the benefit must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace, as it is better to acquit the guilty than convict the innocent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the dying declaration contradicts the ocular evidence presented by the prosecution?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of right or a concession for the accused in criminal proceedings?
  • Does the failure to hold a proper identification parade render the identification of accused persons unreliable?
  • Can corroborative evidence like recoveries sustain a conviction if the primary ocular evidence is found to be doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Atif Shabbir vs Rizwan Riaz and 10 others2023 CLC 100 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-01Read full judgment →
• Atif Riaz vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Religious2023 PLD Lahore 536 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-11
  writ of certiorarievacuee trust propertylease cancellationpublic purposeejectmentaudi alteram partemconstitutional petitionexecutive policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, sought the annulment of an order cancelling the lease of urban evacuee trust property held by the petitioner in order to utilize the land for a public purpose, specifically the establishment of a government college. The core legal questions involved the interpretation and scope of Section 25 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 regarding lease cancellation for public purposes, the applicability of the principle of audi alteram partem (right of hearing) where a policy decision is made in the public interest, and the competency of invoking constitutional jurisdiction in matters arising from a lease agreement. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Federal Government and statutory authorities possess the lawful authority under Section 25 of the Act and the relevant Scheme to terminate a lease and eject a tenant when the property is required for a public purpose. The Court laid down that determinations concerning public interest and policy fall within the exclusive executive domain, and the rule of prior notice or hearing is not an inflexible requirement where the facts are undisputed and the decision involves a policy-driven public welfare mandate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government or statutory authorities are competent under Section 25 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 to cancel a lease and eject a lessee when the property is required for a public purpose?
  • Does the power of ejectment under Section 25 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 include the termination of tenancy or lease rights?
  • Is the failure to issue a prior notice or afford a hearing fatal to an administrative action taken for a public purpose where the facts are incontrovertible and involve a policy decision?
  • Can a lessee maintain a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution to enforce the terms and conditions of a lease agreement against a statutory body?
  Read full judgment →
• Atif Ahmed and another vs Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (“SECP”) through Chairman and 5 others2023 YLR 1074 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-01Read full judgment →
• Atif Ahmed and another vs Securities and Exchange Commission Of Pakistan (_SECP_) through Chairman and 5 others2023 CLD 313 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-01Read full judgment →
• Atif Abbass vs The State through S.I2023 YLR 94 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-27
  explosive substancesillegal weaponsanti-terrorismsafe custody of recovered articlesexpert opinionenforced disappearance pleabest evidence rulepublic documents certification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Sargodha, convicting the appellant under sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of evidence regarding the recovery of explosive substances, safety fuse, detonators, and a pistol, as well as the validity of the anti-terrorism charge and the appellant's defence plea of enforced disappearance. The Lahore High Court held that while the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of the explosive substance, safety fuse, and pistol beyond a shadow of doubt, it failed to prove that the recovered detonators contained explosive substance or that the appellant had any affiliation with a proscribed organization. Furthermore, the defence failed to substantiate its plea of abduction. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction under section 7(ff) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, maintained the convictions under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 while reducing the sentence under the former, and ordered all sentences to run concurrently. The key principle laid down is that recovery of explosives and arms must be strictly established through expert analysis, and unproved defence documents or failure to examine the best evidence cannot create a dent in an otherwise consistent prosecution case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 be sustained for detonators when the bomb disposal report fails to extract or verify the presence of explosive material?
  • Whether the unverified production of defence documents during a statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 constitutes legal proof without examining the custodian or maker of the documents?
  • Does the failure of an accused to appear as a witness under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to support a specific plea of abduction amount to withholding the best evidence?
  • What constitutes sufficient proof of safe custody and forensic analysis for explosive materials and firearms recovered by police officials?
  Read full judgment →
• Atia Kausar vs Nasreen Gul and others2023 CLC 430 · Lahore High Court · 2022-08-29Read full judgment →
• Ateeq Ahmed Khan S/O Shamim Ahmed Khan vs The State2023 SHC 888 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-11
  pre-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustdelay in FIRextraordinary relieflibertytentative assessmentmalafide intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail despite the prosecution's opposition, considering the significant delay in the FIR and the nature of the evidence. The court held that the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the ad-interim bail previously granted. The ratio of the decision emphasizes that while pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief, courts must adopt a broader interpretation of bail laws, especially when the prosecution's case involves unexplained delays and documentary evidence requiring further inquiry. The court established that if an accused is otherwise entitled to bail, forcing them into custody merely to apply for post-arrest bail serves no useful purpose. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the assessment of malafide intent and the merits of the case are essential considerations in granting pre-arrest bail, ensuring the protection of the constitutional right to liberty.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of three years in lodging an FIR constitute a valid ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is the court required to consider the merits of the case in addition to the element of malafide when adjudicating a pre-arrest bail application?
  • Can an accused be granted pre-arrest bail if the offenses charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the distinction between the principles governing pre-arrest and post-arrest bail justify denying bail to an accused who is otherwise entitled to it?
  Read full judgment →
• Association, Constituted of (1) M/s Associated Consultancy Centre2023 IHC 330 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-19Read full judgment →
• Associated Consulting Engineers Ace Limited and 4 Others_ In the matter of vs Not2023 CLD 426 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-02Read full judgment →
• Asrar Ahmed, Muhammad Rafiq Anjum, Muhammad Riaz, Tahir Iqbal, Syed2023 SCP 200, 2023 SCMR 1427, 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-07-05
  civil servantsservice tribunaldepartmental examinationoption of service rulesapprobate and reprobatepromotion rulesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil petitions for leave to appeal arose from a common judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the service appeals of the petitioners. The petitioners, employed by the Ministry of Defence and later affected by the establishment of the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex Board, claimed they opted to remain civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and were entitled to promotions without departmental examinations. The respondents contended that the petitioners never submitted such options, participated freely in departmental examinations under the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex Board Employees (Service) Rules, 2002, and were thus board employees. The core legal question was whether the petitioners had validly opted to remain civil servants and whether they were subject to the board's promotional rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners failed to prove they exercised the option to remain civil servants, that their continuous participation in departmental exams estopped them from claiming civil servant status under the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, and that the Tribunal's judgment contained no perversity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee appointed before the promulgation of the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex Board Ordinance, 2000, can claim civil servant status without exercising the required option within the prescribed time?
  • Does participation in departmental examinations estop an employee from subsequently claiming to be governed by the Civil Servants Act, 1973 under the doctrine of approbate and reprobate?
  • Are employees governed by the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex Board Employees (Service) Rules, 2002 subject to departmental examination requirements for promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education Khyber Pakhtunkhwa at Peshawar and 2 others2023 PLC (C.S) 743 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-14
  constitutional petitionextra ordinary leavelocus poenitentiaecontract employeeservice lawwithdrawal of leavevested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Certified Teacher appointed on contract, challenged an order prematurely withdrawing his sanctioned extra-ordinary leave for higher studies abroad and directing him to resume duty. The Peshawar High Court examined whether the competent authority could rescind the leave after the petitioner had acted upon it by proceeding abroad. The Court held that since the leave order was lawfully issued by the competent authority without fraud or misrepresentation, and the petitioner had taken a decisive step by acting upon it, the authority could not subsequently withdraw it under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The impugned withdrawal order was declared illegal and set aside, and the petitioner was granted extension of service at par with his colleagues. The key legal principle established is that a lawful order acted upon by an individual to their detriment creates vested rights, and the power to rescind under locus poenitentiae cannot be invoked once a decisive step has been taken, barring exceptions such as fraud, illegality, or lack of jurisdiction in the initial order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a competent authority withdraw or rescind a sanctioned leave order after the employee has acted upon it and proceeded abroad for higher studies?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to a lawful order once a decisive step has been taken by the aggrieved party?
  • Whether an administrative order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing is sustainable in law?
  Read full judgment →