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.

• Asmat vs Sahib Rokhan and 7 others2023 PLD Peshawar 64 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-03Read full judgment →
• Asmat Bibi vs Addl. District Judge, etc2023 LHC 6069, 2024 PLJ Lahore 92 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-15Read full judgment →
• Asma Qamar vs Jubilee Life Insurance2023 CLD 1283 · Insurance Appellate Tribunal Punjab · 2023-07-19Read full judgment →
• Aslam and 4 others vs The State2023 YLR 1188 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-02
  criminal appealcompromisecompoundable offencenon-compoundable offenceprinciple of mergerqatl-i-amdkidnapping in order to murderacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b)/34 and Section 364/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties resolved their disputes and filed joint applications for compromise under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned whether a compromise on the main compoundable offence of murder under Section 302 warrants the acquittal of the accused on the associated non-compoundable offence of kidnapping under Section 364 through the principle of merger. The High Court held that where parties have amicably settled their disputes and compromised the major offence, minor or associated offences—even if non-compoundable—merge into the major offence and should be treated as compounded to foster peace and harmony. Consequently, the court accepted the compromise, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does a compromise between the parties regarding a major compoundable offence warrant the acquittal of the accused on an associated non-compoundable offence under the principle of merger?
  • Can the ingredients of kidnapping or abducting in order to murder be established when the accused themselves transport the injured victim to a hospital for treatment?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the first information report on the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Asim Jamshaid vs Shahzad Iqbal Malik, etc2023 LHC 2269 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-26Read full judgment →
• Asim Jamshaid vs Shahzad Iqbal Malik and others2023 CLC 1100 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-28Read full judgment →
• Asim Irfan Ahmad vs Additional District and Sessions Judge, Islamabad2023 YLR 1123 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-12-30Read full judgment →
• Asif Ullah vs The State2023 YLR 966 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-29
  narcotics controlsafe transmission of samplescriminal appealrecovery of charascontradictions in evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-IV/Judge Special Court, Nowshera, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 9(c) of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 read with Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that 17,335 grams of charas were recovered from a vehicle driven by the appellant. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecution evidence, safe transmission of narcotics samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), and material contradictions in witness testimonies. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish safe transmission of the samples since the official who carried them to the FSL was not produced, and noted glaring contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses alongside physical improbabilities regarding the alleged recovery. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the official who carried representative samples to the FSL vitiate the safe transmission of the samples?
  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained when there are glaring contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding material aspects of the search and recovery?
  • What is the effect of the absence of an application for FSL analysis and lack of evidence regarding how contraband was extracted from a vehicle's fuel tank on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Naeem vs Mst. Bilqees Fatima and 3 others2023 CLC 1962 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
• Asif Nadeem and others vs Controller General of Accounts, Federal Bank2023 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 1 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service tribunalpromotion quotaregularizationseniority listinitial appointmentestacode
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenges an order passed by the Controller General of Accounts regularizing the services of a respondent as Data Processing Officer (BS-17) allegedly in violation of the prescribed promotion and initial appointment quotas. The core legal questions involve whether the regularization of an employee from a parent department infringes upon the promotion quota of local employees, and whether promotion quota takes priority over initial appointment under service rules. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the impugned regularization order was invalid as the private respondent remained an employee of the parent department (Auditor General of Pakistan) and was merely placed for posting, and further held that promotion quota holds priority over initial direct appointment according to established establishment instructions. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the impugned order modified.

  Questions settled

  • Does promotion quota have priority over initial direct appointment in filling vacancies under service rules?
  • Does the posting of an employee from a parent department to another office create a right in the seniority list of the receiving organization?
  • Can an authority regularize an employee from another department against a quota meant for local promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Munawar vs Bank Islami Pakistan and 02 others2023 SHC 283, 2024 CLD 126 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-19Read full judgment →
• Asif Khan @ Mota vs The State2023 SHC 648 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-24
  post-arrest bailnarcoticscharas possessionfaulty investigationcriminal procedureevidentiary doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Asif Khan @ Mota, who was charged with the possession of 1,600 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the prosecution's allegations and the evidentiary record. The court held that the investigation appeared faulty, noting the absence of evidence regarding the alleged financial transactions and the failure to recover further contraband despite the applicant's alleged admissions. Furthermore, the court emphasized that bail is a substitution of custody rather than an acquittal, and the prosecution failed to establish that the applicant would abscond, tamper with evidence, or repeat the offense. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail, holding that the applicant's continued incarceration was not justified given the tentative nature of the prosecution's case and the completion of the investigation. The key principle laid down is that bail should be granted when the prosecution's case is prima facie doubtful and the standard exceptions—likelihood of absconding, tampering with evidence, or repeating the offense—are not met.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the investigating agency to collect evidence regarding alleged financial transactions create sufficient doubt to warrant bail?
  • What are the established exceptions that justify the refusal of bail in criminal cases?
  • Is the completion of an investigation and submission of a challan a relevant factor in granting post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Iqbal vs Civil Aviation Authority through its Director General and another2023 IHC 286 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-14
  writ petitionmaintainabilitystatutory rulesCivil Aviation Authorityservice regulationsconstitutional jurisdictiontransfer order
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Civil Aviation Authority (C.A.A.), challenged his transfer from Islamabad International Airport to Gwadar Airport, alleging victimization due to his trade union activities and prior litigation. He further contended that the transfer violated the C.A.A.'s internal policy prohibiting the transfer of non-Baloch employees to Balochistan. The C.A.A. contested the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner's terms and conditions of service were not governed by statutory rules or regulations. The core legal question was whether the Civil Aviation Authority Service Regulations, 2000, constitute statutory rules, thereby enabling the High Court to exercise its constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Court, relying on established Supreme Court precedents, held that the C.A.A. Service Regulations, 2000, are non-statutory as they lack Federal Government approval and function primarily for internal control and management. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petition was not maintainable, as the petitioner could not invoke constitutional jurisdiction for service-related grievances. The petition was dismissed without addressing the merits of the transfer order.

  Questions settled

  • Are the Civil Aviation Authority Service Regulations, 2000 considered statutory rules?
  • Can an employee of the Civil Aviation Authority invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court regarding service matters?
  • Does the absence of Federal Government approval render internal service regulations of a statutory body non-statutory?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Fahim Malik through his Special Attorney vs State and anotherPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 500, 2023 YLR 2426 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-07
  appeal against acquittalspecial attorneylimitation periodcondonation of delaycheatingmaintainabilitycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the acquittal of the respondent in an offence under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the competency of filing a criminal appeal through a special attorney and the maintainability of an appeal filed with an inordinate delay of 176 days, alongside the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 to criminal appeals against acquittal. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. The court held that criminal law does not provide for the filing of a criminal appeal through an attorney and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is excluded by virtue of Section 29 of the same Act when a special law provides a distinct limitation period. The key principles laid down are that criminal appeals cannot be prosecuted through a special attorney, that the limitation period of thirty days for filing an appeal against acquittal is strictly applicable, and that a delay in filing cannot be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal appeal be filed and prosecuted through a special attorney?
  • Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to criminal appeals against acquittal governed by Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the prescribed period of limitation for filing an appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether delay in filing a criminal appeal can be condoned without a formal application or a satisfactory explanation for each day of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali, Tauseef, Muhammad Waqar Adil, The State vs The State and another, The State and another, Tauseef and another, Asif Ali2023 LHC 4812, 2024 YLR 1099 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-28
  last-seen evidencecircumstantial evidencechance witnesscriminal appealmurder convictionacquittalCall Data Recordappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals against the conviction and sentencing of Asif Ali and Tauseef for the murder of Muhammad Basit, alongside a revision petition seeking sentence enhancement. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the presented ocular, last-seen, and circumstantial evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found the last-seen evidence unreliable as it lacked corroboration, and the direct ocular evidence was provided by chance witnesses whose presence was unexplained and whose conduct was unnatural. Furthermore, the medical evidence was inconclusive regarding the cause of death due to the decomposed state of the body, and the circumstantial evidence, including Call Data Records and recoveries, failed to link the appellants to the crime. The court emphasized that last-seen evidence is the weakest form of proof and that circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, declined to confirm the death sentence, and dismissed the revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is last-seen evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction without strong corroboration?
  • Can a conviction be based on Call Data Record evidence in the absence of voice transcriptions?
  • Does the failure of a single link in a chain of circumstantial evidence invalidate the entire prosecution case?
  • What is the evidentiary value of testimony provided by chance witnesses whose presence at the scene is unexplained?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali vs The State2023 SHC 461 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-27
  narcotics possessionsentencing discretionmitigating factorsrehabilitative justicecriminal appealreduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the possession of 3.5 kilograms of charas, an offence punishable under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the court could exercise discretion to reduce the sentence based on mitigating factors. The Court held that the prosecution provided an uninterrupted chain of evidence, confirming the appellant's culpability. However, acknowledging the appellant's youth, lack of prior criminal record, familial responsibilities, and expressed remorse, the Court exercised its discretion to balance punitive measures with rehabilitative goals. The key principle laid down is that while deterrent punishment is necessary, sentencing is not a rigid mathematical exercise; courts may exercise discretion to reduce sentences in special circumstances when an offender demonstrates potential for reformation and seeks a chance to reintegrate into society, provided cogent reasons are assigned for such leniency.

  Questions settled

  • Does the sentencing process require a balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors beyond a rigid application of penal provisions?
  • Can a court exercise discretion to reduce a sentence based on the offender's potential for reformation and familial responsibilities?
  • Is the prosecution required to establish an uninterrupted chain of facts from the seizure of contraband to forensic analysis to prove a narcotics offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali vs The State and another2023 YLR 1143 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-07
  post-arrest bailbenefit of doubt at bail stagetentative assessmentcommon intentionforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises out of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Tank, declining post-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner charged in an FIR under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail based on tentative assessment, differing forensic evidence regarding recovered empties, and discrepancies in eye-witness accounts. The Peshawar High Court held that where a tentative assessment of the record reveals arguable points, such as conflicting forensic reports regarding weapons fired and unexplained discrepancies in naming eye-witnesses, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused even at the bail stage. The court allowed the petition and directed the release of the petitioner on post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused person at the bail stage?
  • Does a discrepancy in the number of recovered weapon empties and forensic reports create an arguable case for post-arrest bail?
  • Whether deeper appreciation of evidence is warranted while deciding a bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali Solangi vs Mst. Asma Abdullah & & Ors2023 SHC 908 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-24
  habeas corpuscustody of minorsguardian and wardsunnecessary partycriminal miscellaneous applicationwelfare of minor
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the applicant's request to have his name deleted as a party from a habeas corpus petition filed by his brother's wife concerning the custody of minor children. The core legal questions involve whether an unnecessary party can be removed from habeas corpus proceedings relating to minor custody and the scope of Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure versus the Guardians and Wards Act. The Sindh High Court held that since the recovery of the minors was still under adjudication and the applicant, as the brother of the father, could assist the executing agency in ensuring their safe production, interference with the trial court's order was unwarranted. The court ruled that habeas corpus proceedings under Section 491 are summary and distinct from regular custody determinations under the Guardians and Wards Act, and the applicant's cooperation was required for the safe recovery of the children.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person who is not directly involved in the detention of minors seek deletion of their name from a habeas corpus petition?
  • Does the pendency of proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act bar the jurisdiction of the court under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • What is the primary consideration for a court while deciding matters relating to the custody and welfare of minors?
  • Whether the High Court will interfere with an interlocutory order of a trial court refusing to delete a party in a habeas corpus petition for the recovery of minors?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali Memon vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Government2023 PLC (C.S.) 228 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-09
  civil servant transferconstitutional petitionservice matterstenure protectionown pay and scalemaintainabilityArticle 212administrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the transfer and posting orders of a civil servant serving as Director-General of the Karachi Development Authority. The petitioner argued that his transfer was politically motivated, violated the tenure protection principles established by the Supreme Court in the Anita Turab case, and involved the appointment of a junior officer on an 'Own Pay and Scale' (OPS) basis. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction over these service matters given the constitutional bar. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, which bars the High Court from adjudicating service-related terms and conditions. However, the Court reaffirmed that while the government has the power to transfer civil servants under Section 10 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973, such discretion must be exercised reasonably, transparently, and in the public interest. The Court emphasized that frequent transfers without valid reasons, particularly those bypassing seniority or utilizing OPS appointments, constitute bad governance and violate established legal principles.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable before the High Court regarding the transfer and posting of a civil servant?
  • Does the government have the authority to appoint a junior officer to a higher post on an 'Own Pay and Scale' (OPS) basis?
  • Can a civil servant's tenure be curtailed without assigning reasons or initiating disciplinary proceedings?
  • Does Section 10 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 grant the government unfettered discretion to transfer civil servants regardless of seniority or tenure?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashique Hussain Korai vs The State2023 YLR 1160 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-27
  Qatl-e-amdDouble murderEyewitness testimonyAbsconsionCommutation of sentenceMotiveCriminal appealMedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the double murder of his wife and a cousin. The core legal questions concern the reliability of ocular evidence, the impact of minor contradictions in witness statements, the evidentiary value of absconsion, and the necessity of motive in awarding the death penalty. The Court upheld the conviction, finding the eyewitness testimony consistent, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by medical evidence and the appellant’s unexplained absconsion. The Court held that minor contradictions do not invalidate credible testimony and that conviction can rest on a single reliable witness. Regarding sentencing, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish a motive for the crime. Applying the principle that the absence of a proven motive warrants leniency in capital cases, the Court commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment on each count. The judgment reinforces that while ocular evidence remains paramount, the failure to prove motive is a significant factor in mitigating the quantum of sentence from death to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be based on the testimony of a single witness?
  • Does the failure to conduct a post-mortem examination automatically demolish the prosecution's case?
  • Is the absence of a proven motive sufficient grounds to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Does the absconsion of an accused after the commission of an offence serve as corroborative evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashique Ali vs Saeed Ahmed and others2023 SHC 483 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-24
  Section 173 Cr.P.C.Section 561-A Cr.P.C.column no. 2let off accusedscrutiny memojudicial mindinherent powers of High Courtquashing of order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the complainant under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate whereby two accused persons were let off and their names placed in column No. 2 of the final report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 561-A to interfere with such an order, and whether the Magistrate applied independent judicial mind by considering the prosecution's scrutiny memo. The Sindh High Court held that the High Court possesses inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A to prevent the abuse of court process and secure the ends of justice, and found that the Magistrate failed to consider the scrutiny memo submitted by the Assistant District Public Prosecutor. The impugned order was set aside, and the Magistrate was directed to re-decide the matter after considering all case materials including the scrutiny memo. The key principle laid down is that a Magistrate must judicially evaluate all material on record, including the prosecutor's scrutiny memo, when passing an order under Section 173 Cr.P.C., and the High Court can rectify resultant illegalities under its inherent powers.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to set aside an order of a Magistrate accepting a police report under Section 173?
  • Is a Judicial Magistrate required to consider the scrutiny memo submitted by the prosecutor when evaluating a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be interfered with under Section 561-A to prevent the abuse of the process of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Muhammad and others vs Mst. Suhagan2023 SCMR 1171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-04
  civil revisionlimitation periodvoid transactionmutation cancellationconcurrent findingsoral leasefraud
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court which had reversed the concurrent findings of the two lower courts and decreed the respondent's suit. The respondent had filed a suit in 2010 seeking the cancellation of various mutation entries dating back to 1959 and 1966 on the ground of fraud, while admitting she was out of possession. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding it to be barred by time and unsupported by evidence, but the High Court reversed these findings. The Supreme Court heard the matter and held that the suit was hopelessly barred by time as the plaintiff failed to establish the date of knowledge regarding the alleged void transactions to extend limitation, and further noted material contradictions in the plaintiff's evidence regarding an oral lease. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the dismissal of the suit, setting aside the High Court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether limitation runs against a void transaction from the date of knowledge and requires explicit pleading?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the courts below in its revisional jurisdiction without valid legal grounds?
  • Does a party out of possession challenging historical mutation entries need to satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Hussain and others, The State and others vs The State and others, Ashfaq Hussain and others2023 LHC 7536, 2023 PCRLJ 1825 · Lahore High Court
  murderbenefit of doubtchance witnessocular accountmedical evidencerecoverymotiveacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected matters challenge the conviction and death sentence of Ashfaq Hussain and life imprisonment of Abdul Majeed Shah under Section 302(b), PPC, arising from a murder case registered under Section 302 read with Section 34, PPC. The core legal questions involve the credibility of ocular accounts provided by related and chance witnesses, the evidentiary value of delayed forensic reports and recoveries from open places, and the benefit of doubt arising from multiple infirmities in the prosecution's case. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitnesses were chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful, the recovery of weapons and blood-stained articles was legally flawed due to delayed submission and open access, and the prosecution failed to prove the motive or its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for enhancement of sentence, reaffirming the fundamental principle that the prosecution must stand on its own legs and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and chance witnesses can be safely relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a positive forensic report regarding blood stains on a weapon when deposited after a significant delay?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the set-up motive vitiate the entire case against the accused?
  • When is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt resulting from cumulative discrepancies in the prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmad Kharal etc. vs Province of Punjab through its Secretary, Law & Parliamentary Affairs etc.2023 LHC 603, 2024 PLD Lahore 129 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-14
  caretaker governmentAdvocate Generallaw officersfree and fair electionsconstitutional petitionpublic interestElections Act 2017pleasure of the Governor
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions challenged the removal of the Advocate General and various law officers by the caretaker Chief Minister of Punjab, alongside the appointment of new incumbents. The core legal question concerned the scope of authority of a caretaker government under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and the Elections Act, 2017, specifically regarding the removal and appointment of public law officers. The Court held that the caretaker government possesses the authority to remove law officers, as these positions are held during the pleasure of the Governor and the relationship is fiduciary, akin to attorney-client. The Court upheld the removal of the petitioners, reasoning that a caretaker government must maintain strict neutrality to ensure free and fair elections. However, the Court set aside the appointment of new law officers who had served in the political government immediately preceding the last one, finding that such appointments undermined the caretaker government's mandate of impartiality. The judgment establishes that while caretaker governments may perform necessary administrative functions, they must avoid actions that compromise their neutrality or pre-empt the authority of a future elected government.

  Questions settled

  • Does a caretaker Chief Minister have the authority to remove the Advocate General and other law officers?
  • Are the powers of a caretaker government limited to routine, non-controversial, and urgent matters under the Elections Act, 2017?
  • Can the appointment of law officers by a caretaker government be challenged on the grounds of political bias or lack of neutrality?
  • Does the relationship between the State and its law officers constitute a master-servant relationship or a fiduciary attorney-client relationship?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmad vs Govt. of Punjab etc2023 LHC 2668 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-17Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmad Kharal etc vs Province of Punjab through its Secretary, Law & Parliamentary Affairs etc2023 LHC 427 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-14Read full judgment →
• Asghari Begum (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Province of The Punjab and others2023 YLR 1672 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs National Bank of Pakistan through Branch Manager2023 CLD 1086 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-05Read full judgment →
• Asfandyar and others vs The State and another2023 LHC 6074, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 795 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-11
  criminal procedureprivate complaintchallan casecross casesNur Elahi principlestay of proceedingsconflicting versions
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition concerns the procedural handling of a criminal case involving multiple, conflicting versions of an incident arising from a single occurrence—a police challan case and two private complaints. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly refused to stay the challan case proceedings pending the outcome of a private complaint, given the precedent in Nur Elahi v. The State. The Court held that the trial court erred in its approach. It established that where a private complaint and a police challan case contain different versions, specifically regarding the identity of the accused or the roles ascribed, the private complaint must be prioritized and tried first, with the challan case kept dormant. Furthermore, where rival parties present entirely different versions of the same incident through cross-cases, these must be tried simultaneously by the same court to prevent conflicting judgments. The Court set aside the impugned order, directing the trial court to proceed according to these principles, emphasizing that the Nur Elahi procedure is not an inflexible rule but a guiding framework for ensuring justice in complex, multi-version criminal litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is the procedure laid down in Nur Elahi v. The State an inflexible rule that must be followed in all criminal cases involving a challan and a private complaint?
  • How should a trial court proceed when there are two distinct, rival versions of the same criminal incident presented by different parties?
  • Does the existence of a private complaint with different accused persons than those in the police challan necessitate staying the challan case proceedings?
  • Can a High Court exercise revisional powers suo motu to correct procedural errors in lower court trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Asfand Yar vs The State2023 YLR 824 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-31
  double murdercompromise in murder casecommutation of death sentencehostile witnessesocular testimonycriminal appealmurder referencefamily dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference concern the conviction of the appellant for the double murder of his brothers and causing firearm injuries to his mother and another brother. The trial court sentenced the appellant to death and imprisonment. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite hostile witnesses, and whether a partial compromise by one legal heir could be accepted in a murder case. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular testimony of natural witnesses credible and the medical evidence corroborative. However, the Court held that a compromise under Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is only effective to the extent of the specific legal heir who enters into it, provided other heirs do not consent. Consequently, the Court accepted the compromise regarding the mother's injuries but not the murders. Furthermore, noting the lack of pre-meditation and the existence of a sudden family quarrel, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, maintaining the conviction while adjusting the sentences accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise under Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted if only one of several legal heirs agrees to it?
  • Does the hostility of injured witnesses automatically invalidate the prosecution's case when other natural witnesses provide consistent ocular testimony?
  • Is the absence of pre-meditation in a sudden family quarrel a valid ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Are family members who reside in the same house as the occurrence considered natural witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Asar Khan vs Nazeer2023 PHC 209 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
• Asadullah vs The State etc2023 LHC 6365 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-20
  narcoticsre-analysisfair trialdue processprosecution lacunacase propertyadversarial system
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mian Channu, which directed the re-analysis of the entire case property (narcotic substances) by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency during trial proceedings. The Appellant, charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, argued that such re-examination was legally impermissible. The core legal question was whether a trial court can order a fresh analysis of recovered narcotics to fill evidentiary gaps or lacunas in the prosecution's case. The High Court held that the trial court's order was unsustainable, as it allowed the prosecution to rectify deficiencies in its case, which is contrary to the adversarial system and the principles of a fair trial. The Court emphasized that re-testing of narcotics is generally prohibited unless extraordinary circumstances exist, which were absent in this case. The principle laid down is that judicial intervention to order fresh analysis of case property, particularly to cover prosecution lacunas, violates the fundamental right to a fair trial and due process guaranteed under the Constitution, and is not permitted under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court order a fresh analysis of narcotic case property to fill gaps in the prosecution's evidence?
  • Does the re-testing of narcotic substances by the prosecution violate the right to a fair trial?
  • What is the procedure for a trial court to address ambiguities in a Government Analyst's report without ordering a fresh test?
  • Are there circumstances under which a court may permit the re-examination of recovered narcotic substances?
  Read full judgment →
• Asadullah Khan vs Province of Punjab and others2023 LHC 2234 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-11Read full judgment →
• Asadullah Khan and another vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and another2023 PLJ SC 115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-07-28
  direct appealcompetency of appealpetition for leave to appealconstitutional jurisdictionconcurrent findingslimitationSupreme Court Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the competency of a direct appeal filed under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, against a High Court judgment that partially modified a trial court decree. The appellant challenged the dismissal of his claim while accepting the portion of the High Court judgment that varied the lower court's order in his favor. The core legal question was whether such an appeal is maintainable under Article 185(2)(d) when the appellant does not challenge the "varied" portion. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was incompetent. It reasoned that where a judgment is partially upheld and partially reversed, and the appellant challenges only the dismissed portion, this does not constitute "variation" under the constitutional provision. Consequently, the appellant was required to file a Petition for Leave to Appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. The Court established that a direct appeal under Article 185(2)(d) is not available when the appellant accepts the variation made by the High Court and only contests the concurrent findings of dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 competent when the appellant challenges only the dismissed portion of a High Court judgment while accepting the varied portion?
  • Does a partial modification of a lower court judgment by the High Court constitute a 'variation' sufficient to invoke the appellate jurisdiction under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Is a delay in filing an appeal due to the counsel's performance of Umrah a sufficient ground for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad-ur-Rehman vs Usman Shahid and 8 others2023 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 84 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-01-17Read full judgment →
• Asad Umar vs The State and others2023 IHC 276 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-24Read full judgment →
• Asad Umar vs The State and another2023 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-24Read full judgment →
• Asad Qaiser etc. vs The State etc.2023 PHC 380 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-08-04Read full judgment →
• Asad Qaiser etc. vs The State etc2023 PHC 378 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-08-04Read full judgment →
• Asad Mumtaz Warriach vs Ali Mumtaz Warriach2023 LHC 5757 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-26Read full judgment →
• Asad Imran and another vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1013 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-20
  Shaheed Packagepolice service benefitsservice lawinterpretation of rulesconstitutional petitiondepartmental notificationcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the District Scrutiny Committee, which denied the petitioners' request to declare the deceased, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, as 'Shaheed' (martyred) and grant his family the associated incentives under the notification dated 30.05.2015. The deceased was murdered while on duty at a police station. Despite a second post-mortem and forensic evidence confirming his death while on duty, the authorities excluded him from the 'Shaheed' category, citing restrictive criteria. The core legal question was whether the authorities could arbitrarily exclude a police officer murdered while on duty from the benefits of the 'Shaheed Package' notification. The Court held that the impugned order was illegal and without lawful authority. It declared the deceased a 'Shaheed' and directed the payment of benefits within thirty days. The Court established that departmental instructions issued by a competent authority have the force of law, and where rules are capable of a reasonable interpretation favorable to an employee, that interpretation must be preferred. Furthermore, authorities are legally obligated to follow such notifications, and their failure to do so constitutes a disregard for the law.

  Questions settled

  • Do departmental instructions or notifications issued by a competent authority possess the force of law?
  • Should rules capable of multiple interpretations be construed in a manner favorable to the employee?
  • Can authorities arbitrarily exclude a police officer murdered while on duty from the benefits of a 'Shaheed' package?
  • Is a government department legally obligated to comply with a notification regarding service benefits once it is issued?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Haroon Khan vs The State & others2023 PHC 574 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-12-04Read full judgment →
• Asad Ali vs Pir Qamar Zaman and 3 others2023 YLR 890 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-12-08
  criminal appealappeal against acquittalbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRcontradictory medical evidencedouble presumption of innocencehudood
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court acquitting respondents of charges under Section 17(3) of The Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, by extending them the benefit of doubt. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, material contradictions in ocular and medical evidence, and the failure to establish specific roles or recover incriminating evidence from the respondents. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an acquittal judgment carries a double presumption of innocence which can only be interfered with if the judgment is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or suffering from complete misreading of evidence. The Court laid down the principle that unexplained inordinate delays in reporting crimes and recording witness statements cast serious doubts on the prosecution's case, and that appellate courts will not interfere with an acquittal unless the impugned decision is capricious or results in a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and recording witness statements creates serious doubt on the prosecution case?
  • What is the standard of proof and weight attached to a judgment of acquittal when challenged in an appellate court?
  • Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence warrant the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment in the absence of perversity, arbitrariness, or misreading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Abbas vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary Co-operative2023 PLJ Lahore 34 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Arzoo Textile Mills Ltd. etc vs Federation of Pakistan etc2023 LHC 4059, 2024 CLC 1359, 2023 PLJ Lahore 753 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-12Read full judgment →
• Ary Communications Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan & others2023 SHC 102, 2024 PLD Sindh 50 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-03Read full judgment →
• Ary Communications Limited vs Independent Media Corporation Private2023 SHC 178 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-14Read full judgment →
• Arslan Sanjrani vs The State2023 YLR 1311 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-15
  acid attackdeath sentenceextra-judicial confessionAnti-Terrorism Court jurisdictioninterested witnesscapital punishmentmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of a young woman by throwing acid on her, following her refusal of his marriage proposal. The core legal questions concern the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court, the reliability of ocular evidence from related witnesses, the admissibility of an extra-judicial confession made to a journalist, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held that the Anti-Terrorism Court had jurisdiction as the incident created public terror and insecurity. It affirmed the conviction, finding that the prosecution's evidence—comprising consistent ocular testimony, medical reports confirming acid-burn injuries leading to death, and the appellant's extra-judicial confession—was credible and corroborated. The Court laid down the principle that mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not discredit their testimony if it is natural and consistent, and that an extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true, can form the sole basis for conviction. The death sentence was confirmed due to the brutal nature of the crime and lack of mitigating circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can an extra-judicial confession made to a journalist serve as a valid basis for a criminal conviction?
  • Does an acid attack incident that creates public terror fall within the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Is it mandatory for the prosecution to produce every cited witness at trial to prove its case?
  Read full judgment →
• Arslan Iqbal and 2 others vs Muhammad Shabir and 6 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 146 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-10-26
  service lawinitial recruitmentcadre changemandatory advertisementdepartmental service rulesappointment procedurewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which directed the official respondents to advertise posts of Junior Clerks (B-7) after finding that the appellants' appointments were made without following the prescribed recruitment procedure. The core legal question was whether the departmental authorities could bypass the mandatory requirement of advertising vacancies and filling them through initial recruitment by instead changing the cadre of existing employees. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal. The Court held that where departmental service rules mandate a specific procedure for recruitment to vacant posts, no alternative method, such as cadre change, can be adopted. The Court affirmed that the posts in question were permanent and required initial recruitment. The key principle laid down is that statutory and departmental rules governing recruitment are binding; authorities are legally obligated to advertise vacancies for initial recruitment, and any appointment made in derogation of these rules is invalid. Consequently, the Court directed the authorities to fill the posts strictly in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can departmental authorities fill permanent posts through cadre change when service rules mandate initial recruitment?
  • Is the advertisement of vacant posts a mandatory requirement under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977?
  • Does a court have the authority to direct the re-advertisement of posts if the initial appointments were made in violation of departmental rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Rafique Abbasi s/o Muhammad Rafique Abbasi vs Syed Sadiq2023 SC AJK 28 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Arshad Mehmood vs Judge Family Court and another2023 LHC 95 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-24Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mehmood and others vs Special Judge-I, Anti-Terrorism Court, Islamabad and others2023 PCRLJ 203 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-19
  anti-terrorism courtjurisdictionmens reaterrorismpersonal vendettaprivate enmitytransfer of casesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves writ petitions challenging an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court dismissing the petitioners' application under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and holding that the charged offence falls within the definition of terrorism. The core legal question was whether a gruesome crime resulting from a private altercation and personal enmity can constitute terrorism under section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, merely because it creates fear and insecurity or involves the use of firearms. The Islamabad High Court held that an act, howsoever gruesome or shocking, does not qualify as terrorism unless it is accompanied by the requisite specific mens rea and design or purpose set out in section 6(1)(b) and (c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and that fear or insecurity resulting as an unintended consequence or fallout of a private crime does not make it an act of terrorism. The court laid down the principle that the interpretation of terrorism established by the Supreme Court in Ghulam Hussain applies retrospectively to the enactment of section 6 in its present form, and directed the transfer of the case to the ordinary Sessions Court for continuation of the trial from the stage left off.

  Questions settled

  • Does a gruesome crime resulting from personal enmity or private vendetta constitute terrorism merely because it creates fear and panic in society?
  • Can mens rea for the offence of terrorism be inferred solely from the consequences or effects produced by a criminal act?
  • Does the interpretation of terrorism laid down by the Supreme Court in Ghulam Hussain apply retrospectively to acts committed prior to its pronouncement?
  • Whether an Anti-Terrorism Court is bound to transfer a case to an ordinary court under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, when the offence does not fall within the definition of terrorism?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mahmood vs The State and another2023 MLD 992 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-27
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clauserecovery of amountcriminal breach
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 7929/2022 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kahna, District Lahore, concerning the dishonour of a cheque allegedly issued for the repayment of a loan. The core legal questions involve whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and whether criminal proceedings under Section 489-F can be used as a recovery mechanism. The court held that since the maximum punishment for an offence under Section 489-F does not exceed three years, it falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), making bail the rule and refusal the exception, and further noted that criminal proceedings under this section are not a mechanism for debt recovery. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can criminal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be utilized as a mechanism for the recovery of a loan amount?
  • Is post-arrest bail to be granted as a rule when an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause and no exceptional circumstances are shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali, and (2) Asif Ali vs The State2023 SHC 1142, 2024 PCRLJ 1183 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-12
  appellate reviewconviction set asidecharaschain of custodysafe transmissionchemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the High Court of Sindh was filed by two appellants challenging their conviction and life imprisonment sentences under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur. The prosecution alleged that 25 kg of charas was recovered from a trailer truck driven by the appellants during a search at an excise post. Upon reappraisal of the evidence, the High Court observed critical contradictions, discrepancies, and unexplained gaps in the prosecution's case. Notably, the prosecution failed to examine the official who delivered the samples to the chemical examiner, creating a fatal break in the chain of safe custody and safe transmission. Reaffirming established jurisprudence, the High Court held that an unbroken chain of custody is imperative to give probative value to a Chemical Examiner's report. The Court ruled that failure to prove safe transmission vitiates the report's reliability and entitles the accused to acquittal based on reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to prove the safe custody and unbroken transmission of drug samples vitiate the reliability of a Chemical Examiner's report?
  • Can a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be sustained where the official who delivered the samples to the laboratory is not examined as a witness?
  • Whether material contradictions between prosecution witnesses regarding search, seizure, and sample packaging create reasonable doubt entitling the accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali vs The State etc2023 LHC 4463 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-15
  post-arrest bailnarcotics smugglingbody packingdrug mulesmedical evidenceControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was charged with smuggling heroin via body packing, an offence under section 9(1)6(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner contended that the prosecution's case was doubtful because the retrieval of the ingested drug capsules took three days, which he argued was inconsistent with the natural process of evacuation, suggesting false implication. The Court examined medical literature regarding 'body packing' and 'body stuffing,' noting that the time required for the passage of ingested drug packets can vary significantly, often taking several days, and that hospital observation is standard practice. The Court held that the prosecution's evidence, supported by hospital records and the chemical analyst's report, established a prima facie case. Finding no evidence of false implication or motive by the Anti-Narcotics Force, the Court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing that the medical timeline of recovery was consistent with established medical practices for body packers.

  Questions settled

  • Does the time taken to retrieve swallowed narcotic capsules from a body packer constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Is the medical management of body packers through conservative hospital observation consistent with standard forensic and clinical practices?
  • Does the recovery of narcotics from a body packer over several days inherently cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali vs Furqan Uddin Usmani and Two Others2023 SHC 820 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-02Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali vs Furqan Uddin Usmani and two other2023 SHC 818, 2025 PLJ Karachi 28 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-20Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary I.T. and Telecom, Islamabad and 4 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 371 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-25
  Voluntary Separation Schemepension benefitsspeaking orderpublic functionaryconstitutional jurisdictionservice mattermisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the General Manager (HR&BP), PTCL, which refused the petitioner’s application for pension benefits under a Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS). The petitioner, a former Lineman, argued that he was entitled to the agreed VSS package based on his appointment date of 01.10.1987, whereas the respondent-department erroneously claimed his service commenced on 29.10.1995, thereby disqualifying him. The core legal question was whether the respondent-authority failed to properly evaluate the documentary evidence regarding the petitioner's length of service and whether the impugned order constituted a valid speaking order. The Court held that the respondent-authority failed to appreciate the record, specifically the offer letter confirming the 1987 appointment date. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned order illegal and without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, public functionaries are legally mandated to act as quasi-judicial authorities, meaning they must apply their minds to all facts, assign cogent reasons, and issue well-reasoned speaking orders when determining the rights of parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a public functionary to address relevant documentary evidence in an order violate the requirements of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  • Is a public functionary required to issue a speaking order when determining the rights of a party under a Voluntary Separation Scheme?
  • Can a High Court set aside an administrative order that fails to account for established facts regarding an employee's date of appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali And Another vs State and anotherPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 559, 2023 P Cr. L J 1437 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-20
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of the doubtdelayed FIRchance witnessesforensic evidencechain of custodyweapon recoveryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing the qatl-e-amd of the deceased, alongside a reference for the confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the eyewitnesses, the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the authenticity of the recovery of the weapon of offense, and the chain of custody regarding crime empties collected by forensic experts. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, delayed FIR creation indicating consultation, broken chain of custody for crime empties, and questionable forensic evidence lacking formal proof. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentence, answered the murder reference in the negative, and acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of a few hours in lodging the FIR creates doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution's case?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a safe chain of custody for crime empties collected by forensic teams render a positive forensic report inconclusive?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right if the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • Whether the testimony of related chance witnesses can be safely relied upon without independent corroboration in the presence of material contradictions and suspicious circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Abbas vs The State and another2023 IHC 410 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-07
  circumstantial evidencemurderlast seenburden of proofdomestic violencestrangulationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, for the murder of the appellant's wife. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through circumstantial evidence, specifically regarding the 'last seen' theory, medical evidence of strangulation, and the appellant's failure to substantiate his defense of suicide. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution effectively proved the chain of events, including the appellant's presence at the scene and a history of domestic cruelty. The court affirmed the conviction, ruling that once the prosecution discharges its initial burden, the evidential burden shifts to the accused under Article 122 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 to explain facts within his exclusive knowledge. As the appellant failed to provide credible evidence for his contradictory defense of a 'blind incident' versus 'suicide,' the trial court's judgment was upheld. The principle established is that circumstantial evidence, when forming a complete chain, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder in a domestic setting.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an accused to provide evidence for a defense plea of suicide, when the prosecution has established a chain of circumstantial evidence, justify the dismissal of an appeal against conviction?
  • When does the evidential burden shift to the accused under Article 122 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 in a murder case?
  • Is a defense plea that is self-contradictory, claiming both a 'blind incident' and 'suicide,' sufficient to rebut prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Arsal vs Khalid Mehmood and other2023 PHC 350 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-06Read full judgment →
• Arooj Sikandar Malik vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Secretary Health, having its office at New Secretariat, Muzaffarabad and 6 others2023 PLJ AJ&K 14 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-08-31Read full judgment →
• Arif Pervaiz vs Director General, National Accountability Bureau and others2023 MLD 28 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-07Read full judgment →
• Arif Kamal and others vs The State2023 YLR 207 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-03
  Special Court (Offences in Banks)jurisdictionscheduled offencebusiness of a bankforgeryinsurance fraudState Life Insurance Corporationconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment and conviction passed by the Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh at Karachi for offences relating to forgery, cheating, and falsification of accounts. The core legal question is whether the Special Court had jurisdiction under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 to try offences committed by employees of an insurance company (State Life Insurance Corporation) and private individuals where no bank employee was involved in the fraud and no financial loss was caused to any bank. The court held that since the alleged illegalities did not fall within the definition of a 'scheduled offence' committed in respect of or in connection with the business of a bank, the Special Court lacked jurisdiction to try the matter. Consequently, the convictions were set aside and the appellants were acquitted, with liberty granted to the prosecution to initiate proceedings before the appropriate forum under ordinary law. The key principle laid down is that the jurisdiction of a Special Court under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 requires a direct nexus between the alleged offence and the business of a bank involving active complicity or criminality of a bank or its employees.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Court established under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 have jurisdiction to try offences where no bank employee was involved and the loss was sustained by an insurance company rather than a bank?
  • What constitutes a scheduled offence in respect of or in connection with the business of a bank under Section 2(d) of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984?
  • Can the consent, acquiescence, or omission to raise an objection invest a Special Court with jurisdiction over a non-scheduled offence?
  • What are the legal consequences when a Special Court proceeds to try and convict an accused in a matter where it lacks inherent jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Arif Hassan Ali Hashwani & others vs Sadruddin Hashwani & others2023 SHC 192, 2024 PLD Sindh 75 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-16Read full judgment →
• Arif Hafeez Khan vs Zahid Maqsood Quresh and others2023 SHC 1014 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-17Read full judgment →
• Arif Fareed vs Bibi Sara and others2023 SCMR 413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-06
  Leave to appealFamily suitMaintenanceNon-joinder of partiesProcedural technicalitiesFamily Courts Act, 1964Constitutional jurisdictionArticle 199Child rightsExpeditious disposal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal, filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition concerning a family court decree. The core legal question was whether a family court decree granting maintenance to a minor daughter was invalid due to her not being formally arrayed as a plaintiff in the suit. The petitioner contended an inherent defect in the suit's filing. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the non-joinder of the minor as a formal plaintiff was a mere technicality and did not result in a miscarriage of justice, as her claim for maintenance was clearly pleaded and sought in the plaint. The Court emphasized that the Family Courts Act, 1964, allows for procedural flexibility, and suits should not fail on technicalities like mis-joinder or non-joinder. It also reiterated that High Courts should sparingly exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 in family matters, avoiding its use as a substitute for appeal or revision, to uphold the legislative intent of expeditious disposal.

  Read full judgment →
• Arif Ali vs The State and another2023 PHC 392 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-07Read full judgment →
• Ariba Naeem and another vs Additional District Judge, etc2023 LHC 444 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-20Read full judgment →
• Arbaz Rahim vs The Manager/Incharge Careem & another2023 IHC 8 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-13
  consumer protectionunfair trade practicestandard form contractunconscionabilityride-hailing servicesadhesion contractconsumer court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment by the Consumer Court, Islamabad, which dismissed a complaint filed under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995, regarding alleged overcharging by a ride-hailing service provider and its driver. The core legal questions were whether standard form contracts, which shift liability to third-party contractors, can shield service providers from consumer protection claims, and whether a complaint can be summarily dismissed without procuring the attendance of all necessary parties. The High Court set aside the dismissal, holding that the Consumer Court acted prematurely by not exhausting efforts to secure the driver's presence. The Court established that service providers cannot use unconscionable standard form contracts or adhesion contracts as a 'concealed dagger' to evade liability for unfair trade practices. Consumer protection laws are designed to safeguard consumers from exploitative practices, and courts must utilize statutory powers to procure the attendance of necessary parties to ensure a fair adjudication on the merits rather than dismissing claims based on procedural technicalities.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service provider use terms and conditions in a standard form contract to avoid liability for unfair trade practices under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995?
  • Is a consumer complaint liable to be dismissed solely on the basis of a private agreement between a consumer and a third-party contractor without an inquiry into the alleged unfair trade practice?
  • Does the Consumer Court have the authority to seek assistance from government agencies to procure the attendance of a respondent under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995?
  Read full judgment →
• Arbaz Rahim vs Manager/Incharge Careem and anotherPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 667, 2023 CLD 1348 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-17
  consumer protectionunfair trade practicestandard form contractunequal bargaining powerunconscionable bargainride-hailing serviceremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal assails the judgment of the Consumer Court dismissing the appellant's complaint under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995 concerning alleged overcharging by a ride-hailing service (Careem) and its registered driver. The core legal questions involved whether standard form contracts with unequal bargaining power can bar consumer claims, and whether a consumer complaint can be dismissed without securing the testimony of the driver. The Islamabad High Court held that unconscionable standard form terms cannot be used by service providers to evade liability for unfair trade practices, and dismissing the complaint prematurely without procuring the driver's attendance was unwarranted. The court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Consumer Court for a decision on merits after securing the driver's presence. The key principle laid down is that adhesion contracts and standard terms cannot override consumer protection rights or be used as a shield against liability for unfair trade practices.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the terms and conditions agreed by a party having unequal bargaining power in an un-negotiated standard form of contract can take away the right of a consumer to dispute any unfair trade practice before the Consumer Court?
  • Can a service provider rely on standard form terms and conditions to avoid liability under consumer protection laws?
  • Whether a consumer complaint can be dismissed without procuring the version and attendance of the service provider's agent or driver involved in the dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Arbab Ali Shar vs The State2023 YLR 2395 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-14
  murderpolice witnessbenefit of doubtsame set of evidenceacquittal of co-accusedadverse inferencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatal-i-Amd of two deceased persons, as rendered by the trial court. The core legal question involved the reliability of sole police eyewitness testimony in a case originating from spy information, and whether an accused can be convicted on the same set of evidence upon which co-accused have already been acquitted. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's narrative was unnatural, that the failure to produce a central police witness drew an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and that convicting the appellant on the identical set of evidence that led to the acquittal of a co-accused was legally unsustainable without independent corroboration. The court established that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted on the same set of evidence upon which co-accused have been acquitted in the absence of independent corroboration?
  • What is the evidentiary standard for judging the testimony of police officials acting as eyewitnesses?
  • What is the legal effect when the prosecution withholds a central eyewitness during a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqil vs The State2023 SCP 73 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murderocular evidencerelated witnessinjured witnesscriminal appealevidentiary valueprompt FIRdiscrepancy vs contradiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment that maintained the petitioner’s conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while commuting his death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony provided by related and injured witnesses, the impact of minor discrepancies in evidence, and the necessity of motive and recovery evidence for sustaining a conviction. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, noting that the FIR was lodged with promptitude and the witnesses remained consistent. The Court affirmed that "related" witnesses are not automatically "interested" witnesses, and the testimony of an injured witness carries significant evidentiary weight. It further established that where ocular evidence is trustworthy and confidence-inspiring, it takes precedence over medical evidence and is sufficient to sustain a conviction, even if the prosecution fails to prove motive or recovery of the weapon. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no legal or factual error in the High Court’s appreciation of the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship between witnesses and the deceased automatically render them interested witnesses whose testimony must be discarded?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on ocular evidence alone if the prosecution fails to prove the motive or recover the weapon of offense?
  • What is the legal distinction between a discrepancy and a contradiction in the testimony of a prosecution witness?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence necessitate the acquittal of the principal accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqil vs StatePLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murderinjured eye-witnessinterested witnessrelated witnessocular evidencemedical evidenceprompt FIRdiscrepancy versus contradictionsentence reductionlife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a criminal petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the double murder of the complainant's mother and sister, but reduced his death sentence to imprisonment for life. The petitioner contended that ocular testimony was contradictory and came from related, interested witnesses, medical evidence contradicted ocular testimony, the motive remained unproven, and co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that prompt FIR registration excluded consultation, the natural and injured eye-witnesses were reliable, and relationship alone does not make witnesses 'interested'. Minor observational discrepancies differ from fatal contradictions and do not impair credible ocular testimony, which takes precedence over corroborative medical evidence. Although motive was not convincingly established and recovery was inconsequential, these mitigating factors had already been rightly accommodated by the High Court by commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere relationship with the deceased render an eye-witness an 'interested' witness whose testimony must be discarded?
  • What is the legal distinction between a minor discrepancy and a contradiction in witness testimony?
  • Does trustworthy and confidence-inspiring ocular evidence take precedence over corroborative medical evidence in criminal trials?
  • Can a conviction be sustained against a principal accused when co-accused are acquitted on the same set of evidence if their roles are distinguishable?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqeel Mirza vs The State2023 MLD 793 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-11-21
  superdarirelease of vehiclecontrol of narcotic substancesnarcotics transportationcriminal appealbona fide ownerlack of knowledge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (East), Islamabad, dismissing the appellant's application for the release of a vehicle on superdari. The vehicle was used to transport a huge quantity of Charas, during which the occupants escaped, leaving the car behind. The core legal question was whether the registered owner was entitled to the temporary release of the vehicle on superdari under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, despite lacking concrete evidence of lack of knowledge regarding its illicit use. The court held that the appellant took contradictory pleas, failed to provide convincing evidence or documents showing lack of knowledge, and did not establish that he was unaware of the vehicle's use in narcotics transportation. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, laying down the principle that a vehicle involved in narcotics transportation will not be released on superdari during trial unless the owner prima facie establishes a lack of knowledge regarding such use.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a vehicle involved in the transportation of narcotics can be released on superdari during the pendency of the trial?
  • Does the owner of a vehicle carrying contraband need to establish lack of knowledge to claim superdari?
  • Can a court release a vehicle on superdari when the owner takes self-contradictory pleas regarding its possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqeel Hassan Kazmi & another vs Beenish Kazmi and others2023 SC AJK 40 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-05-30Read full judgment →
• Aqeel and others vs The State2023 MLD 156 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-03
  juvenile justicevicarious liabilitydeath sentence conversionbenefit of doubtcommon intentionocular testimonyFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the conviction of four appellants for the murder of Muhammad Saleh. The trial court sentenced one appellant to death and three to life imprisonment under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the death sentence given the appellant's claim of juvenility, the sufficiency of evidence regarding vicarious liability for a co-accused, and the impact of delayed FIR registration. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court failed to properly inquire into the juvenility claim, necessitating the conversion of the death sentence to life imprisonment in line with the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. Regarding the co-accused Zafar alias Malai, the Court held that mere presence at the scene without an active role is insufficient to establish vicarious liability, granting him an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt. The Court affirmed that while delay in FIR lodgment is not inherently fatal, it requires reasonable explanation, which was provided here. The judgment reinforces the necessity of judicial inquiry into juvenility and the strict requirements for establishing common intention.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to conduct an inquiry into a claim of juvenility necessitate the conversion of a death sentence?
  • Is mere presence at the scene of a crime sufficient to establish vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a delay in the registration of an FIR automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqal Munir and others vs Gul Munir and others2023 PHC 472 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-26Read full judgment →
• Appellate Jurisdiction vs Taj Muhammad (deceased) through LRs and others2023 SCP 140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  pre-emptionTalb-e-MuwathibatTalb-e-Ishhadservice of noticeco-vendeeregistered postproof of talabs
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeal arose under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the Appellate Court's decision and restored the Trial Court's decree dismissing the appellants' pre-emption suit. The core legal questions pertained to whether the pre-emptor successfully established the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad, and whether delivering the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad to co-defendants rather than personally to each vendee constitutes valid service in law. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the right of pre-emption is weak and strict compliance with the performance of Talabs is mandatory. The plaintiff failed to prove the exact time and circumstance of knowledge for Talb-e-Muwathibat without doubt, and the evidence of the postman and the plaint admitted that notices of Talb-e-Ishhad were served on co-defendants rather than personally on each individual vendee. Such indirect delivery does not constitute valid service in the eye of the law, causing the entire pre-emption claim to fail.

  Questions settled

  • Does service of the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad on a co-defendant or co-vendee constitute valid service on other defendants in the eye of the law?
  • What is the consequence on a pre-emption suit if the pre-emptor fails to prove the valid performance of either Talb-e-Muwathibat or Talb-e-Ishhad?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish that the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was actually delivered to all vendees/defendants?
  Read full judgment →
• Anyi Sundy Alias Joe vs The State and 2 others2023 MLD 255 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-14
  statutory baildelay in trialprinciple of consistencyfinancial corruptionpre-trial detentionconstitutional right to liberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail petition filed by a foreign national accused of financial crimes, including embezzlement and money laundering, seeking release on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having been in detention for a period exceeding the statutory limit without the trial concluding, was entitled to bail, and whether he fell within the exceptions for 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' criminals. The Court held that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the delay was attributable to the petitioner or that he met the criteria for the exceptions under the law. Emphasizing that the statutory right to bail flows from the constitutional guarantees of liberty and a fair trial, the Court ruled that in the absence of evidence of a concerted effort by the accused to delay proceedings, the petitioner was entitled to bail. Furthermore, the Court applied the principle of consistency, noting that co-accused with similar roles had already been granted bail on the same statutory grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail on statutory grounds if the trial is not concluded within the prescribed period and the delay is not attributable to the accused?
  • Does the mere allegation of involvement in financial corruption suffice to classify an accused as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' criminal under the sixth proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What must the prosecution demonstrate to successfully oppose a bail application based on statutory delay in trial?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply to co-accused persons when determining entitlement to bail on statutory grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Khan vs Assistant Commissioner, Tehsil Alpurai, District Shangla and others2023 CLC 1406 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
• Anwar Khan and others vs Fozia Khan and another2023 CLC 1039 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-13Read full judgment →
• Anwar Javed Khan vs Mazhar Ali & others2023 SHC 1104 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-19Read full judgment →
• Anwar Baig, Chairman Conservancy Management Committee (CMC) and 4 others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Climate Change and 2 others2023 CLD 1249 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-11-25Read full judgment →
• Anwar Badshah vs State through Additional Advocate General and another2023 PCRLJ 945 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-23
  child witnessbelated testimonycorroborationmurder trialcriminal appealevidentiary valueacquittalsite plan inconsistency
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his sister-in-law. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a child witness's testimony, the impact of a belated recording of such testimony, and whether circumstantial evidence sufficiently corroborated the prosecution's case. The Peshawar High Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. The Court observed that the child witness was examined fourteen days after the occurrence without a plausible explanation, rendering her testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the Court noted significant inconsistencies between the prosecution's site plan and the child's version of events, and found the recovery of the alleged murder weapon highly doubtful given prior police searches of the premises. The Court reiterated the principle that while a child witness may be competent under Article 3 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, their testimony requires independent corroboration as a rule of prudence, especially when the witness is introduced at a belated stage. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the belated examination of a prosecution witness without a plausible explanation render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is the sole testimony of a child witness sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal test for determining the competency of a child witness to testify under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a fundamental inconsistency between the prosecution's site plan and the testimony of the sole eye-witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar and another vs The State2023 YLR 2185 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-03
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencedelayed FIRidentificationrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) read with Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant delay in registering the FIR, the questionable identification of the accused during night hours using torchlight, and the reliability of the recovery of the alleged murder weapon. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies, including an unexplained three-day delay in FIR registration, failure to produce the alleged source of light (torches) as evidence, and discrepancies between the ocular and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was deemed doubtful and foisted. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, and a conviction cannot rest on conjecture or probability.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular evidence is inconsistent with the medical evidence regarding the number of injuries sustained by the deceased?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon considered sufficient to sustain a conviction when the substantive evidence connecting the accused to the crime is disbelieved?
  • Does the failure to produce the alleged source of light used for identification during night hours render the identification of the accused doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali vs The State2023 MLD 535 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-19
  narcoticsrecovery proceedingssafe custodychain of custodybenefit of doubtchemical examiner reportcriminal appeal
  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 narcotics. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the integrity of the recovery proceedings and the chain of custody of the seized contraband. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to multiple fatal flaws: the failure to associate independent witnesses despite the availability of residents; unexplained overwriting in official departure entries; material contradictions between the testimony of the complainant and the mashir regarding the recovered items; and the failure to establish the safe custody and transmission of the samples to the chemical examiner. Furthermore, the discrepancy between the recovery of black-colored bags and the receipt of white-colored packets by the chemical examiner created significant doubt. The Court reiterated the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a narcotics recovery operation create reasonable doubt?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody and transmission of samples to the chemical examiner to secure a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • What is the legal consequence when there are material contradictions between the testimony of the complainant and the mashir regarding the recovered contraband?
  • Can a conviction be sustained if there is unexplained overwriting in the official police departure entries (roznamcha)?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali Talpur and another vs Province of Sindh & Others2023 SHC 500 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-15Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali and another vs Abdul Hakim and others2023 PLD Peshawar 181 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-22Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ahmed Ansari vs Pak Libya Holding Company (Pvt) Ltd, Muhammad2023 SHC 345 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Anwar Ahmed Ansari vs Pak Libya Holding Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. and 2 others2023 CLD 867 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-23Read full judgment →
• Anser Mahmood Chughtai vs Shahzadi Fatima Ali2023 CLC 267 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-07-29Read full judgment →
• Ansar and others vs The State and others2023 SCMR 929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-02
  dacoity with murderSection 396 PPCconjointlyidentification paradeocular accountminor discrepanciesvicarious liabilitydacoity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from criminal petitions for leave to appeal filed by petitioners convicted by the trial court under Sections 302, 324, and 396 read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) for dacoity cum murder, which convictions were upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions pertained to the evidentiary value of minor discrepancies, the procedural requirements of identification parades, the impact of failed weapon recoveries, and the scope of joint liability under Section 396, P.P.C. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, refusing leave to appeal. The Court held that the ocular account, supported by medical evidence and proper identification proceedings, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court laid down that minor discrepancies not touching the root of the prosecution case are immaterial; an identification parade is a corroborative exercise; and Section 396, P.P.C. is a self-contained provision imposing vicarious liability on all members of an assembly of five or more persons conjointly committing dacoity if any one of them commits murder during the offense.

  Questions settled

  • Does a minor discrepancy in witness testimony invalidate the prosecution case if it does not go to the root of the matter?
  • Is a failure to conduct a valid identification parade fatal to the prosecution where credible court identification by an eyewitness exists?
  • Does Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code require proof of which specific offender fired the fatal shot to establish criminal liability for dacoity with murder against all participants?
  Read full judgment →
• Ansar and others vs State and othersPLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  dacoity with murderidentification paradeconjointlyvicarious liabilityocular accountminor discrepanciesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal petitions for leave to appeal were filed against a High Court judgment maintaining the convictions and life sentences of the petitioners under Sections 302/149, 396, and 324/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with compensation under Section 544-A and benefit under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution alleged that armed accused committed dacoity in the complainant's house and fatally shot one pursuer and injured another while retreating. The petitioners contended that lack of specific attribution for the fatal shot, acquittal of a co-accused, and procedural defects in the identification parade warranted their acquittal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and refused leave to appeal. The Court held that Section 396 is a self-contained provision creating contributory vicarious liability; where five or more persons conjointly commit dacoity and any one of them commits murder during the transaction, all participants are liable regardless of who fired the fatal shot. The Court also reiterated that minor discrepancies do not shatter ocular testimony and identification parades serve as corroborative evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether individual fatal attribution to a specific accused is required to convict all participants of dacoity with murder under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What are the essential legal ingredients required to invoke constructive liability under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the failure or defect in conducting an identification parade prove fatal to the prosecution when the ocular account inspires confidence?
  • Can the acquittal of a co-accused on distinct grounds be claimed as a basis for acquittal by other accused tried on the same evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Anjum Saleem vs Citi Bank and another2023 CLD 521 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-02Read full judgment →
• Anjum Latif vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 735 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-09
  benefit of doubtdeaf and dumb witnesscriminal appealforensic evidencesafe transmissioninterested witnessescapital punishmentprocedural safeguards
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentence awarded by the trial court for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concern the evidentiary value of statements from deaf and dumb witnesses, the necessity of proving safe transmission of forensic evidence, and the impact of acquitting co-accused on the remaining case. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the Court ruled that the trial court erred in recording the testimony of deaf and dumb witnesses without adhering to strict procedural safeguards, including assessing intelligence and ensuring the interpreter was not an interested party. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish the safe transmission of crime empties to the forensic laboratory, rendering the forensic report inconsequential. The Court reaffirmed that where the prosecution’s case is replete with contradictions, including belated recording of statements and lack of independent corroboration, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • What procedural safeguards must a trial court adopt when recording the testimony of a deaf and dumb witness?
  • Does the failure to prove the safe transmission of forensic evidence render a forensic report inconsequential?
  • Can the conviction of remaining accused be sustained when co-accused have been acquitted on the same set of evidence without independent corroboration?
  • Does the belated recording of statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without explanation cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Anjam Ali Khan vs Mehar Shah and 3 others2023 CLC 1942 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
• Anjam Ali Khan vs Mehar Shah and 03 others2023 PHC 137 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
• ANF vs Adnan Rafique2023 YLR 63 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-28
  confiscation of vehiclereturn of case propertytransportation of narcoticsControl of Narcotic Substances Actregistered ownercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force under section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, challenging the order of the Special Court whereby a motorcar used in the transportation of narcotics was ordered to be returned to the respondent claimant. The core legal question was whether a vehicle used in the transportation of narcotics could be released to its registered owner who was not an accused in the crime and whose knowledge or connivance in the offence was unsubstantiated. The Islamabad High Court held that since the respondent was the undisputed registered owner and lacked any established nexus, knowledge, or connivance with the commission of the offence, the vehicle was not liable to confiscation. The court affirmed the trial court's order and dismissed the appeal, laying down the principle that a vehicle cannot be confiscated if the registered owner's innocence and lack of connivance in the narcotics crime remain unsubstantiated during trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a vehicle used in the transportation of narcotics can be returned to its registered owner upon conclusion of the trial?
  • Is a vehicle liable to confiscation under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, when the owner's knowledge or connivance in the offence remains unsubstantiated?
  • Does section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 bar the return of a vehicle to an innocent registered owner who has no nexus with the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Anam Bibi vs Secretary, Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore and 62023 PLC (C.S.) 1552 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-16
  service lawdelegated legislationultra viresdomicile certificatePPSC regulationsrecruitment processsubordinate legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for the post of Lecturer Philosophy (BS-17) by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC). The petitioner, a married female, applied using her husband's domicile certificate, as permitted by Regulation 23(e) of the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2016. However, the PPSC rejected her candidature based on a 'Policy Decision' requiring married female candidates to produce a previous domicile certificate if they do not possess one from their husband's district, rendering those without prior domicile ineligible. The core legal question was whether a PPSC Policy Decision could impose additional eligibility criteria that contradict or restrict the beneficial provisions of the PPSC Regulations, 2016. The Court held that the Policy Decision was ultra vires and illegal because subordinate policy decisions cannot override or restrict statutory regulations. The Court affirmed that delegated legislation must remain within the scope of the parent statute and regulations, and any policy conflicting with such regulations is void. Consequently, the Court set aside the rejection orders and directed the PPSC to continue the petitioner's recruitment process.

  Questions settled

  • Can a policy decision issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission impose eligibility criteria that contradict the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2016?
  • Does a married female candidate have the right to opt for her husband's domicile under the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2016, without possessing a prior domicile certificate?
  • Is a policy decision that restricts the scope of a beneficial regulation considered ultra vires?
  Read full judgment →