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.

• Anam Bibi vs Secretary, Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore &2023 LHC 537 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-16Read full judgment →
• Amsa Marine Aid vs MV "Tolmi" and Another2023 SHC 475 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-07Read full judgment →
• Amreli Steels Limited and Others vs Fed. Of Pakistan and Others2023 SHC 822 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-20Read full judgment →
• Amraf Butt vs Imran Bashir, etc2023 LHC 1615 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-09Read full judgment →
• Ammad Yousaf vs The State and another2023 SCP 314, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-14
  cognizance of offencesoffences against the statedelegatus non potest delegarequashing of FIRinherent powers of trial courtacquittal before chargefreedom of speech
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings against a news channel director implicated in an FIR concerning anti-state offences following a live television broadcast. The core legal questions addressed whether a court could take cognizance of offences listed under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 via a police FIR rather than a formal complaint by the authorized government, and whether trial courts must exercise their inherent powers under Section 265-K to quash groundless prosecutions. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner. The Court held that offences specified in Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require a direct complaint from the Federal or Provincial Government (or its specifically empowered officer) and cannot be initiated via an FIR or re-delegated authorization under the maxim delegatus non potest delegare. Initiating trial proceedings for such offences on an FIR is coram non judice, constituting an abuse of process where material lacks to connect the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court take cognizance of state offences listed under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the basis of a police FIR?
  • Can an officer empowered by the government under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 re-delegate that authority to another official?
  • Is the exercise of inherent quashing powers by a trial court under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory where no probability of conviction exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Ammad Yousaf vs Ghulam Murtaza Chandio & anotherPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 685, 2023 P Cr. LJ 1256 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-14
  framing of chargeprima facie casetrial within a trialadmissibility of evidencecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed against the trial court's order dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 265-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the trial court decided to proceed with framing a charge against the petitioner in a case registered under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application under Section 265-D, Cr.P.C. and whether the evidentiary value and admissibility of documents like transcripts can be examined at the stage of framing of charge. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that at the stage of framing a charge under Section 265-D, the trial court is only required to see whether a prima facie case or ground for proceeding with the trial exists based on the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and accompanying documents, without delving into the veracity, admissibility, or deep scrutiny of evidence. The key principle laid down is that evaluating the truth, veracity, or strict admissibility of evidence is not the domain of the court at the charge-framing stage, as doing so would amount to holding a trial within a trial.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of inquiry by a trial court under Section 265-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at the stage of framing a charge?
  • Can the admissibility and evidentiary value of documents such as transcripts be determined at the stage of framing a charge?
  • Whether a trial court is required to assess the truth or veracity of evidence when considering an application under Section 265-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Saeed and another vs Muhammad Saeed and 2 others2023 MLD 115 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-24Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hussain vs Zafar Jang and another2023 YLR 168 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-10-25Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hussain vs Nazir Ahmad and others2023 PLD Supreme Court 22 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-24
  review jurisdictionSupreme Court Ruleschange of counselspecial leavefrivolous petitionslegal ethicsadvocate's certificate
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns applications filed under Order XXVI, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, seeking special leave to engage a new Advocate to file and argue a review petition, as the original counsel who appeared at the hearing of the main case refused to do so. The core legal question is whether a party can substitute their counsel for a review petition without demonstrating unavoidable circumstances or valid justification. The Court held that the applications were insufficient and rejected them, thereby refusing to entertain the review petitions. The Court reasoned that the requirement under Rule 6 for the original counsel to draft and argue the review is designed to prevent the rehearing of the main case and to ensure that only meritorious, non-frivolous petitions are filed. The principle laid down is that the Court's discretion to grant special leave to change counsel in review proceedings is not mechanical; it must be exercised judiciously, and such leave is only granted when the appearance of the original counsel is impossible due to unavoidable circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party substitute the counsel who argued the main case for the purpose of filing a review petition without special leave of the Court?
  • What is the scope of the Court's discretion under Order XXVI, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 regarding the change of counsel for review petitions?
  • Does the refusal of the original counsel to file a review petition constitute sufficient ground for the Court to grant special leave to change counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hameed Gondal and another vs Raja Muhammad Ilyas2023 CLD 92 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-11Read full judgment →
• Amjad Amin Lodhi vs Addl. District Judge, etc2023 LHC 6602 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-13Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali vs The State2023 YLR 1406 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-15
  criminal appealmurder convictionocular evidencedeath sentence commutationappreciation of evidenceSection 342 CrPC statementrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased and for causing injuries to others. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through ocular and corroborative evidence, and whether the death sentence was appropriate given the lack of proven motive and the appellant's prolonged incarceration. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through the consistent and reliable testimony of three eye-witnesses, which was corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon of offense. The Court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence. The key principle laid down is that while reliable ocular evidence can sustain a conviction, the absence of a proven motive in a murder case, combined with the appellant's long period of custody (in this case, 19 years), constitutes sufficient grounds to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence if the accused's Section 342 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded without putting all incriminating evidence to him?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive in a murder case justify the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can the evidence of related eye-witnesses be relied upon in the absence of proven enmity between the parties?
  • Is it permissible for an appellate court to exclude pieces of evidence not put to the accused during his Section 342 Cr.P.C. statement while still maintaining the conviction based on remaining evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali vs Agricultural Development Bank now ZTB and others2023 CLD 397 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-24Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali S/O Abdul Rasheed vs The State2023 SHC 514 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-03Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali and others vs Secretary Public Health Engineering, Khyber2023 MLD 2003 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-08
  review jurisdictioncivil service regularizationback benefitsaccidental sliperror apparent on the face of the recordcontract employeeswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed review petitions seeking the deletion of specific restrictive language from a previous judgment that had regularized their services but denied them back benefits. The core legal question was whether the inclusion of this language constituted an accidental slip or omission or an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the exercise of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that no valid grounds for review were established. It reaffirmed that review jurisdiction is exceptional and distinct from appellate jurisdiction. A judicial pronouncement carries sanctity and cannot be lightly interfered with. The Court emphasized that review is restricted to cases involving the discovery of new, previously unavailable evidence, errors apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient causes. Crucially, a review petition cannot be used to re-argue the merits of the case or raise points that were available but not pressed during the original hearing. A conscious, deliberate decision on a point of law or fact remains binding.

  Questions settled

  • Can a review petition be used to re-argue a case or raise points that were available but not pressed during the original hearing?
  • What are the essential preconditions for exercising review jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Does a conscious and deliberate decision on a point of fact or law warrant a review of the judgment?
  • Is a review petition equivalent to an appeal or revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali alias Zakir alias Sajid S/o Khairat Ali vs The State2023 SHC 834 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-19
  rapezina bil jabrdna evidencechild witnessidentification paradedeath sentenceconfirmation referenceserial offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 376(3) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the rape of a minor girl and sentencing him to death. The core legal questions involve the credibility of a minor victim's sole eyewitness testimony, the evidentiary value of a positive DNA profiling match linking the accused to the crime across multiple similar offenses, and the sufficiency of corroborative medical and circumstantial evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the testimony of the minor victim was natural, straightforward, and fully corroborated by prompt FIR lodging, medical evidence, and conclusive DNA profiling which serves as a golden standard of corroboration. The court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, ruling that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the solitary testimony of a minor victim of rape, if found credible and confidence-inspiring, can form the sole basis for a criminal conviction without independent corroboration?
  • What is the evidentiary weight and legal status of DNA profiling evidence in criminal trials involving sexual assault?
  • Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report get sufficiently justified when the victim is a minor receiving emergency medical treatment in a hospital?
  • Whether the non-holding or delay in holding an identification parade is fatal to the prosecution's case when the victim positively identifies the accused in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali & 7 others vs Secratery Public Health Engineering Khyber2023 PHC 113 · Peshawar High Court
  review jurisdictionregularization of serviceaccidental slip or omissionerror apparent on face of recordcivil procedureback benefitswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners originally filed civil miscellaneous petitions seeking the modification/correction of a phrase in a judgment delivered in their favor, which allowed their writ petitions regarding regularization of services from initial appointment but excluded back benefits. The Peshawar High Court converted these applications into review petitions under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the court could delete the restrictive condition in the operative judgment through its review jurisdiction on the ground of an accidental slip or omission. The High Court dismissed the review petitions, observing that review jurisdiction is exceptional, statutory, and strictly limited to the discovery of new evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient cause. The court highlighted that review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise or to re-agitate conscious decisions. Furthermore, the foundational precedent upon which the original writ petitions relied had been set aside by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • What are the statutory grounds required to exercise review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a party seek a review of a judgment to re-agitate points of law or fact that were consciously decided by the court?
  • Whether the setting aside of a foundational precedent by the Supreme Court affects pending review petitions relying on that precedent?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Zada vs Mir Dilawar and others2023 PHC 34, 2023 CLC 1208 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-30Read full judgment →
• Amir Zada and another vs Jafar Shah and others2023 PHC 566, 2024 YLR 1227 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-28Read full judgment →
• Amir Waheed Shah & others vs Ajmal Khan & others2023 SCP 366, 2024 SCMR 105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-20
  pre-emptionTalb-i-ishhadgift mutationrejection of plaintdevice and disguiseKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act 1987
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose out of a pre-emption suit filed under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987. The plaintiff sought to pre-empt a land sale (mutation No. 1809) made to a female buyer who immediately transferred the property to her sons via a gift mutation (mutation No. 1810). The trial court dismissed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, but the revision court allowed it due to the plaintiff's failure to make Talbs regarding the subsequent gift transaction. The High Court reversed this on a constitutional petition, remanding the matter. The Supreme Court considered whether a subsequent gift transaction made to defeat pre-emption could be ignored or pre-empted without fulfilling the statutory requirement of Talbs. The Supreme Court held that while legitimate devices to avoid pre-emption are permissible, a plaintiff challenging a disguised transaction must still perform the mandatory Talbs regarding the subsequent transfer. Furthermore, a genuine gift is not subject to pre-emption under Section 2(d) of the Act. Rejection of the plaint was accordingly restored.

  Questions settled

  • Can a transaction structured as a gift be pre-empted under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987?
  • Is a plaintiff required to perform mandatory Talbs regarding a subsequent transfer claimed to be a disguised sale to maintain a pre-emption suit?
  • Does a legitimate legal device to avoid pre-emption constitute an illegal transaction in pre-emption law?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Sohail vs Judge Family Court and others2023 CLC 161 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-30Read full judgment →
• Amir Sohail vs Govt. Of K.P.K and others2023 PHC 243, 2023 CLC 1732, 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1339 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-11
  writ petitionwithdrawal of suitwithdrawal simplicitormaintainabilityres judicataCode of Civil Procedureappointment of teachers
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, concerns the petitioner's challenge to his non-appointment as a Primary School Teacher (PST). The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition regarding the same subject matter, which he withdrew without seeking or obtaining permission from the court to file a fresh petition. The core legal question is whether the doctrine of withdrawal simplicitor, as governed by the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, bars the institution of a subsequent petition on the same cause of action. The court held that the withdrawal of the previous petition without express permission to file a fresh one precludes the petitioner from re-litigating the same subject matter. The court affirmed that where a suit or petition is withdrawn without leave to file a new one, the bar against instituting a fresh proceeding on the same cause of action is absolute and conclusive, rendering the instant petition not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of a writ petition without seeking permission to file a fresh one bar the institution of a subsequent petition on the same cause of action?
  • Is a writ petition governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the withdrawal of suits?
  • What is the legal effect of an order dismissing a petition as 'withdrawn' when no permission to file a fresh petition was requested or granted?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Saleem and another vs The State2023 YLR 6 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-25
  explosive substancesanti-terrorismsentencing principlesmens reacriminal appealmitigating factorsfirst-time offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for the possession of hand grenades. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence regarding the recovery of explosives and whether the appellants' actions satisfied the statutory requirements for terrorism charges. The Court held that while the recovery of explosives was proven, the prosecution failed to establish the necessary mens rea for terrorism or the intent to cause an explosion. Consequently, the convictions under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were set aside. However, the conviction under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, was maintained. Applying principles of sentencing—including deterrence, rehabilitation, and the consideration of mitigating factors for first-time offenders—the Court reduced the sentence to the period already served. The judgment emphasizes that sentencing must be proportionate to the crime and that prosecutors should assist courts in determining appropriate sentences, reflecting a shift toward more nuanced, evidence-based sentencing practices.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possession of explosive substances without evidence of intent to cause an explosion satisfy the requirements of Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
  • Is the absence of evidence linking an accused to a proscribed organization or terrorist activity sufficient to set aside a conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can a court reduce a sentence to the period already served based on the status of an accused as a first-time offender?
  • Does the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions And Powers) Act, 2006, mandate that prosecutors assist the court in proposing appropriate sentences?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Sajjad and others vs The State and others2023 PCRLJ 1650 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-17
  Qatl Shibh-i-Amdcustodial deathpolice tortureburden of proofwrongful confinementcriminal appealcustodial negligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals and a revision petition challenging convictions for Qatl Shibh-i-Amd and wrongful confinement of a detainee who died in police custody. The core legal question was whether police officers are liable for Qatl Shibh-i-Amd when a detainee dies in their custody with evidence of physical torture, despite an inconclusive medical cause of death. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeals and the revision petition, upholding the trial court's conviction. The court held that while direct evidence of intentional murder was absent, the appellants, as custodians of the deceased, failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the circumstances of the death. The key principle laid down is that under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, when a person dies in police custody, the burden of proof shifts to the custodians to explain the circumstances, particularly where evidence of physical torture exists. Police officers have a mandatory legal duty to provide medical care to detainees; failure to do so, combined with evidence of abuse, warrants conviction for Qatl Shibh-i-Amd.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof shift to police officers to explain a death occurring in their custody under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can police officers be convicted for Qatl Shibh-i-Amd when a detainee dies in custody with evidence of torture but an inconclusive cause of death?
  • Is a police officer liable for wrongful confinement under Section 344 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when a detainee is held without a warrant?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Rawan and others vs Manzaray and others2023 YLR 2281 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-03Read full judgment →
• Amir Muhammad Khan vs The State2023 SCP 31 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-18
  murderbenefit of the doubtocular account and medical evidencedelayed FIRunproven motivecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the appellant's conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his grandfather and altering his death sentence to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in light of glaring contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, unproven motive, and a defective recovery. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the appellant as the sole eye-witness's testimony was falsified by medical evidence and the site plan, the FIR was heavily delayed, and the motive remained unproven. Reiteration was made of the fundamental principle that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence are sufficient to create a reasonable doubt requiring the acquittal of the accused?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery made from an open and accessible place?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Muhammad Khan vs StatePLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  benefit of the doubtmurder convictionocular accountmedical evidencedelayed FIRcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering the significant contradictions in the evidence and the defense's alternative theory of the crime. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay, suggesting deliberation. Furthermore, the sole eye-witness's account was significantly contradicted by medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries and the time of death, as well as by the site plan. The prosecution also failed to substantiate the alleged motive. Reaffirming established legal principles, the Court held that the benefit of the doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession. Because the prosecution’s case contained multiple loopholes and failed to provide unimpeachable evidence, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR, without explanation, cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal consequence when there is a material contradiction between the ocular account of an eye-witness and the medical evidence?
  • Is the benefit of the doubt a matter of grace or a right of the accused when a single loophole exists in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive and the recovery of the weapon is from an easily accessible public place?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Mehmood vs The State and another2023 PHC 54, 2024 YLR 309 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-21Read full judgment →
• Amir Manzoor vs Naeem Javed and others2023 YLR 299 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-15Read full judgment →
• Amir Mahmood vs Izharuddin & others2023 SHC 1040, 2025 CLC 997 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-06Read full judgment →
• Amir Hussain vs Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology Karachi2023 SHC 222, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 943 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-22
  master and servantabolition of postprivate universitytermination of serviceinjunctionnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, an employee of the Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology, challenged his relieving from service following the abolition of his post. He sought a declaration and permanent injunction, arguing that his termination after 28 years of service without an inquiry or notice violated principles of natural justice and the governing statute. The defendant contended that the relationship was governed by the master and servant rule and that the termination was a lawful consequence of the post's abolition. The court examined the Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology Karachi Act, 1995, noting that the University is a private entity created by statute. The court held that the relationship between the parties is one of master and servant. It further determined that the abolition of the post was not challenged, and the termination followed the statutory framework for retrenchment. Consequently, the court found no grounds to grant an injunction or order the restoration of services, as the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for such relief. The injunction application was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the relationship between an employee and the Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology governed by the master and servant rule?
  • Can an employee of a private university claim reinstatement after the abolition of their post?
  • Does the Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology Karachi Act, 1995 require a formal inquiry before terminating an employee due to the abolition of a post?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Hayat vs The State2023 PCRLJ 487, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 491 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-06
  criminal misconductcriminal breach of trusttemporary embezzlementpublic servantmisappropriationdisciplinary proceedingsPEEDA Act 2006
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of a public servant for failing to timely deposit government funds. The core legal question was whether the temporary retention of government money by a civil servant, which was subsequently deposited before the registration of an FIR, constitutes criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, or criminal breach of trust under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant misappropriated the funds or used them for unauthorized purposes. The Court established that temporary retention of government money, without evidence of dishonest conversion or fraudulent intent, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of criminal misconduct or criminal breach of trust. Consequently, such conduct is more appropriately addressed through departmental disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, rather than criminal prosecution. The Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that criminal liability requires clear evidence of intent and misappropriation, which was absent in this case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the temporary retention of government money by a civil servant constitute criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947?
  • Can a civil servant be convicted of criminal breach of trust if the allegedly misappropriated funds were deposited before the registration of an FIR?
  • Is the temporary retention of government funds by a public servant a matter for criminal prosecution or departmental disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Faraz vs The State2023 SCP 9 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-19
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationperverse orderinvestigating officer opinionocular accountmurdercriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged the High Court's order granting post-arrest bail to the respondent, who was accused of murdering his two brothers. The core legal question was whether the High Court's bail order was perverse due to its reliance on a second Investigating Officer's opinion, which lacked concrete supporting material, and whether the commencement of the trial precluded bail cancellation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was perverse as it ignored material evidence, including the prompt FIR and ocular accounts, while relying on a bald, unsubstantiated opinion of the police. The Court emphasized that bail can be cancelled if the granting order is perverse, regardless of whether the trial has commenced, especially when the order ignores prima facie evidence of guilt. The key principle laid down is that the opinion of an Investigating Officer has no persuasive value at the bail stage unless it is based on cogent, concrete, and admissible material, and courts must not accept such ipse dixit when it contradicts substantive evidence on record.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bail order be cancelled if the trial has already commenced?
  • Does the opinion of an Investigating Officer have persuasive value at the bail stage if it is not supported by concrete material?
  • What constitutes a perverse order for the purpose of cancelling bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Faraz vs StatePLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-08
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationdouble murderipse dixitinvestigating officer opinionperverse orderrule of consistency
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by the complainant challenging the Lahore High Court's order granting post-arrest bail to the respondent, who was accused of committing the murder of his two real brothers. The complainant argued that the respondent was specifically nominated in a prompt FIR for firing the fatal shot at the deceased's head, which was supported by medical evidence and ocular accounts. The High Court had granted bail by relying on the subsequent opinion of a second Investigating Officer, who declared the respondent empty-handed and the complainant party as the aggressor. The Supreme Court observed that the subsequent police opinion was a bald assertion lacking concrete, admissible material, especially since no cross-case was registered and no one from the accused's side was injured. The Court held that while an Investigating Officer's opinion has persuasive value, courts are not bound by it if it lacks a strong, factual basis. Finding the High Court's bail order perverse for ignoring material evidence, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and cancelled the respondent's bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a post-arrest bail order be cancelled after the commencement of trial if the order is found to be perverse and factually incorrect?
  • Are courts bound to accept the opinion of an Investigating Officer declaring an accused innocent if it is not supported by concrete and admissible material?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply for the grant of bail when the role and injury attributed to the co-accused are distinct and non-fatal compared to the principal accused?
  • Can the absence of a recovered weapon or a negative forensic report discard direct ocular evidence at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Badshah vs The State, Rahim Badshah2023 PHC 388 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-08-17Read full judgment →
• Amir Ali vs Gul Shaker & others2023 SHC 650 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-24Read full judgment →
• Amir Afzal Khan vs Republic Securities Limited & others2023 SHC 640 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-18Read full judgment →
• Aminullah and others vs Syed Haji Muhammad Ayub and others2023 SCP 382, 2024 SCMR 136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-07
  Section 145 CrPCJudicial Magistrate jurisdictionbreach of peacedispute concerning landrestoration of possessionexecutive magistrate
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard an appeal against a High Court judgment under Article 199 of the Constitution, which had restored an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 directing restoration of property possession to the respondent. The primary legal questions concerned the jurisdiction of a Judicial Magistrate to entertain proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 following amendments by the Baluchistan Act 2010, and whether the essential jurisdictional prerequisites for invoking Section 145 were met. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the Judicial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction since Section 145 vested powers strictly in executive authorities under the provincial amendment. Furthermore, the proceedings were invalid because the respondent was not in actual possession, no imminent breach of the peace was established, and the Magistrate unlawfully adjudicated title and right to possession rather than merely temporarily regulating possession to prevent a breach of peace.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Judicial Magistrate have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint and initiate proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the amendment by Baluchistan Act 2010?
  • What are the essential jurisdictional preconditions required to initiate proceedings under Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Magistrate adjudicate upon questions of title or the lawful right to possession under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the mere existence of a property dispute sufficient to invoke Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of an imminent danger of a breach of the peace?
  Read full judgment →
• Amer Tex (Pvt.) Ltd. And 6 Others vs Not2023 CLD 170 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-01Read full judgment →
• Amer Saleem vs Nadeem Akhtar Mirza and another2023 LHC 1419 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ameer ul Hussain Kazi vs National Bank of Pakistan, Nasarpur Branch, Tando Allahyar2023 SHC 285 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ameer Hamza vs Govt: of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others2023 PHC 424 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-03Read full judgment →
• Ameer Bux vs The State2023 PCRLJ 462 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-02
  unlicensed pistolsafe custody of weaponballistic expert report discrepancypolice witness testimonyindependent mashirsbenefit of the doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for possessing an unlicensed pistol under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The core legal questions involve the credibility of uncorroborated police testimony regarding day-time recovery, the failure to associate independent private mashirs, and the legal effect of glaring discrepancies in the number of recovered cartridges sent to the Ballistic Expert without proving safe custody. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish safe transmission of the weapon and that unexplained discrepancies—such as five cartridges being sent to the expert instead of the two allegedly recovered—coupled with the avoidable omission of independent witnesses, created profound reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that when an accused's conviction hinges solely on police testimony, independent corroboration is vital, and a single significant circumstance creating a prudent doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of police officials is sufficient to maintain a conviction when the availability of independent private witnesses was ignored?
  • Does a discrepancy in the number of recovered cartridges sent to the Ballistic Expert compared to those seized create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of a recovered weapon through Malkhana and carrier witnesses?
  • What is the legal effect of a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent judge regarding the guilt of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer Ahmed vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Revenue Sindh, Secretariat Karachi and 5 others2023 MLD 555 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ambreen Ali vs J.M XXVI East and Another2023 SHC 303, 2024 PCRLJ 693 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-04
  writ jurisdictionalternative remedydomestic violencevisitation rightsstatutory revisionconstitutional petitionMagistrate's order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate in a domestic violence complaint, which granted visitation rights to the respondent husband regarding the couple's minor son. The petitioner contended that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to determine custody or visitation matters, which fall under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and that the order undermined the protection granted under the Sindh Domestic Violence (Protection & Prevention) Act, 2013. The core legal question was whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against an order passed by a Magistrate under the 2013 Act, given the existence of an alternative statutory remedy. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that it was not maintainable because the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy of revision before the Sessions Judge under Section 28 of the 2013 Act read with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will decline to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction when a specific, efficacious statutory remedy is available to the aggrieved party.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 maintainable against an order passed by a Magistrate under the Sindh Domestic Violence (Protection & Prevention) Act, 2013?
  • Does the Sindh Domestic Violence (Protection & Prevention) Act, 2013 provide a remedy of revision against orders passed by a Magistrate?
  • Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction when an alternative statutory remedy of revision is available to the petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs The State and another2023 SCMR 527 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-15
  Section 302 PPClife imprisonmentocular evidencerelated witnessprompt FIRmedical evidencemotiverecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, where the trial court sentenced the appellant to death for the murder of the complainant's brother. On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal questions pertained to the credibility of related eye-witnesses, the effect of minor discrepancies in prosecution evidence, delayed post-mortem examination, and the impact of discarding weapon recovery evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the FIR was lodged promptly, eliminating misidentification risks. The Court affirmed that mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render their testimony unreliable if it is consistent and confidence-inspiring. Furthermore, trustworthy ocular evidence takes precedence over medical evidence, minor contradictions do not shatter a credible prosecution case, and discarding weapon recovery does not negate overwhelming ocular account.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of eye-witnesses be discarded solely on account of their close relationship with the deceased?
  • Does a delay in conducting a post-mortem examination invalidate the medical evidence where no cross-examination was conducted on the point and plausible reasons exist?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) PPC be sustained on the basis of credible ocular evidence despite the recovery of the weapon of offence being disbelieved?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs State and anotherPLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 73 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-15
  murderocular evidenceinterested witnessesappreciation of evidencecriminal appealmotivepost-mortem delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court, which maintained the appellant's conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence provided by related witnesses, the impact of alleged delays in the FIR and post-mortem examination, and the sufficiency of the motive. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The Court held that the testimony of related witnesses is not inherently unreliable and can sustain a conviction if it remains consistent and confidence-inspiring. It established that minor discrepancies in evidence do not warrant acquittal when the prosecution's case remains intact. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that trustworthy ocular evidence takes precedence over medical evidence, and that a delay in post-mortem examination, particularly in remote areas, does not invalidate the prosecution's case absent specific challenge during cross-examination. Finally, the Court noted that the substitution of actual culprits in murder cases is a rare phenomenon.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship of prosecution witnesses with the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on ocular evidence if the recovery of the weapon of offence is disbelieved?
  • Does a delay in conducting a post-mortem examination in a remote area necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Are minor discrepancies in the statements of eye-witnesses sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Khan vs Hospital Director, KTH (Mti), Peshawar and others2023 PLC (C.S) 860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-12
  upgradationpromotionvested rightnon-joinder of necessary partiesretrospective upgradationservice lawMedical Teaching Institutions
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Peshawar High Court judgment dismissing the petitioner's claim for retrospective upgradation from BPS-9/12 to BPS-17 under the Board of Governors, Medical Teaching Institutions, Peshawar. The core legal questions addressed whether an employee has a vested right to claim post upgradation with retrospective effect, the necessity of joining senior colleagues in such claims, and the legal distinction between upgradation and promotion. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision and refused leave to appeal. The Court held that the petitioner failed to show eligibility for BPS-17 at the relevant time, and that his petition suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties who were senior to him in the relevant cadre. Reaffirming established jurisprudence, the Supreme Court laid down that upgradation of a post is not a vested legal right but stems from policy decisions aimed at restructuring, reforming, or mitigating service stagnation. Unlike promotion, which entails advancement in rank, grade, and duties, upgradation confers monetary benefits by granting a higher pay scale to incumbents holding the same post.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee has a vested legal right to claim upgradation of a post?
  • What is the legal distinction between promotion and upgradation of a post in service jurisprudence?
  • Can upgradation of a post be claimed with retrospective effect without fulfilling eligibility requirements and joining senior colleagues in the same cadre?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah @ Danish S/O Ghulam Rasool vs The State2023 SHC 604 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-25Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah Shah and another vs The State and another2023 YLR 1865 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-28
  murder appealbenefit of doubtadverse inferencewithholding best evidenceacquittal of co-accuseddelayed post-mortemindependent corroborationocular and medical conflict
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment decided a criminal appeal, a criminal revision, and a murder reference arising from the conviction of two appellants by the trial court under Sections 302(b), 324, 337-A(i), 337-D, 337-F(v), and 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein one appellant was awarded the death penalty. The core legal questions pertained to whether conviction could be sustained where the majority of co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence without independent corroboration, the effect of withholding material injured eyewitnesses under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, the evidentiary value of an unproved motive, delayed postmortem examination, and discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and declined confirmation of the death sentence. The Court held that when majority co-accused are acquitted on identical evidence, independent corroboration is indispensable; withholding material injured witnesses triggers an adverse presumption; delayed postmortem examination suggests deliberation; and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the same set of evidence upon which the majority of co-accused have been acquitted without independent corroboration?
  • Does the prosecution's failure to produce material injured eyewitnesses raise an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
  • What is the evidentiary effect of an unexplained delay of 12 to 18 hours in conducting a postmortem examination?
  • Does the mere presence of injuries on a prosecution witness automatically establish that the witness is truthful?
  Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah and another vs The State and others2023 SCMR 723 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-07
  murderinjured witnessocular evidencemedical evidenceconcurrent sentencesprompt FIRrelated witnesseslife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a criminal petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that modified a death sentence to life imprisonment for the murder of the complainant's brother and the injury of his sister-in-law. The Supreme Court examined whether the ocular account provided by related and injured witnesses was sufficient to sustain the conviction despite alleged contradictions with medical evidence. The Court held that the prompt lodging of the FIR excluded the possibility of fabrication and that the presence of the injured witness at the scene was naturally established by her wounds. The ratio decidendi establishes that where ocular evidence is trustworthy and confidence-inspiring, it takes precedence over medical evidence, which is merely corroborative. Furthermore, the Court clarified that mere relationship to the deceased is not a ground to discard testimony unless enmity is proven. While upholding the conviction, the Court directed that all sentences run concurrently as the offences were committed in a single transaction, maintaining the life imprisonment sentence due to the failure of the motive part of the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a related witness can be discarded solely on the basis of their relationship with the deceased?
  • Does ocular evidence prevail over medical evidence when the former is found to be trustworthy and confidence-inspiring?
  • What is the legal effect of a prompt FIR on the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Can minor discrepancies in medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries negate direct ocular account?
  • Should sentences for multiple offences committed in the same transaction run concurrently or consecutively?
  Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah and another vs State etc_PLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 87 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  ocular evidencemedical evidenceinterested witnessesconcurrent sentencesprompt FIRcriminal appealmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from the conviction of the petitioner for the murder of Niaz Hussain and causing injuries to Mst. Farzana Bibi. The core legal questions concerned whether the ocular account was reliable despite alleged contradictions, whether the relationship of witnesses to the deceased rendered their testimony inadmissible, and the impact of the prosecution's failure to prove the alleged motive. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, noting that the FIR was lodged with promptitude, the ocular account was consistent and natural, and the presence of the injured witness was corroborated by medical evidence. The Court reaffirmed that minor discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence do not negate direct testimony, and that the relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not automatically invalidate their evidence. While the motive was disbelieved, the Court upheld the conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment. Additionally, the Court clarified that when multiple convictions arise from a single transaction, sentences should run concurrently, correcting the omission in the High Court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased inherently invalidate their testimony?
  • Should sentences for multiple offences committed in a single transaction run concurrently or consecutively?
  • Does a failure to prove the alleged motive for a crime automatically necessitate the acquittal of the accused?
  • Can minor discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence justify the rejection of direct testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Saeed, Et (Bps-14) Working Folks Grammar Higher Secondary School, Karak and 16 others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and 3 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1262 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-23
  master and servantWorkers Welfare Boardstatutory rulesconstitutional petitionmaintainabilityterms and conditions of serviceteaching cadre
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a batch of constitutional petitions and contempt applications filed by teachers and staff members of schools under the Workers Welfare Board, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, seeking reliefs including regularization, promotion, salary arrears, and challenge to terminations. The core legal question was whether the services of teachers and teaching staff of the Workers Welfare Board are governed by the statutory Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997. The court held that the 1997 Rules apply exclusively to the administrative and ministerial, engineering, and finance and accounts cadres, and do not cover teaching staff. Consequently, in the absence of statutory rules governing their terms and conditions of service, the relationship is governed by the principle of master and servant, and constitutional petitions under Article 199 are not maintainable for service disputes. The court laid down the principle that employees of autonomous bodies lacking statutory service protection cannot invoke writ jurisdiction for service matters and must seek remedies before the appropriate alternative forum.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the services of teachers and teaching staff of the Workers Welfare Board are governed by the Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997?
  • Can employees whose service terms are not governed by statutory rules invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • What is the legal nature of the employment relationship in the absence of statutory service rules?
  • Does the mere absence of statutory rules entitle an employee of an autonomous body to seek service regularization through a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain Tunio vs Muhammad Waseem Ghori & Other2023 SHC 499 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-10Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain Khuhro and 3 others vs Federation of Pakistan and 6 others2023 PLC (C.S) 796, 2023 PTD 1152 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-23
  civil servantstransfer and postingservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional petitionsbar of jurisdictionInland Revenue Departmentterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions filed by officers of the Audit Cadre in the Inland Revenue Department challenging an FBR letter and a notification restricting their postings as unit in-charges in field formations and from being assigned assessment-related functions. The core legal question is whether such service-related posting matters are maintainable under constitutional writ jurisdiction, or whether they are barred by constitutional provisions relating to service tribunals, and whether civil servants possess a vested right to specific postings. The Sindh High Court held that matters concerning the transfer, posting, and assignment of duties of civil servants fall squarely within the terms and conditions of service, making constitutional petitions incompetent due to the exclusive bar of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973. On the merits, the court laid down the principle that civil servants have no vested right to claim postings or transfers to particular places or specific field assignments, as they are liable to be posted anywhere under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and administrative authorities possess the prerogative to structure departmental duties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a constitutional petition lie against the transfer and posting orders of civil servants in light of the constitutional bar under Article 212?
  • Do civil servants possess a vested right to demand a specific posting or assignment to assessment-related duties in field formations?
  • Whether the Federal Board of Revenue has the administrative authority to restrict audit cadre officers from being posted as unit in-charges in field formations?
  • Does the expression 'Terms and Conditions' of service under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 include transfer and posting?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Habib Jangda vs Osama Hasan Mustafvi and others2023 PLJ Karachi 74 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-10Read full judgment →
• Altaf Ahmad vs Muhammad Anwar and 4 others2023 YLR 1972 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-12Read full judgment →
• Almir vs Mst. Banglow Bibi and others2023 YLR 2003 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-26Read full judgment →
• Almas Mandokhail vs Ainuddin and Others2023 CLC 374 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-12Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited through Attorneys vs National Industrial2023 PLJ Karachi 107 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-17
  trade union registrationtrans-provincial establishmentconstitutional petitionindustrial relationsinfructuous petitionemployer association
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner-bank challenged the registration of Officers Associations by the Registrar of Industry-wise trade unions under the repealed Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002, arguing that employers associations could no longer be registered and that the registrations violated the law. The court noted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the legal landscape changed significantly with the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act 2012, under which the petitioner-bank now qualifies as a trans-provincial establishment. The court observed that the core questions raised by the petitioner had been rendered academic due to these intervening legislative developments and the operational framework established by the new statute. Consequently, the High Court held that adjudicating the validity of the impugned orders under the repealed legislation was no longer necessary as the matter had lost its efficacy. The petition was accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous in light of the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act 2012.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Officer Association of the petitioner-bank can be registered under the Industrial Relation Ordinance 2002?
  • Whether Petitioner-bank has locus standi to approach the High Court as an aggrieved party under Article 199 of the Constitution against the decisions of Registrar Industry-wise Trade Unions?
  • Whether petitioner-bank is a Trans-Provincial Organization and falls within the ambit of the National Industrial Relations Act 2012?
  • Whether or not the registration of industry-wise trade unions is violative of the law and liable to be canceled in view of the mandate of Section 11 of the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore2023 SCP 146, 2023 PTD 1600, 2023 SCMR 1166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-23
  Income Tax Ordinance 2001delegation of powersassessment orderfiscal statute interpretationAdditional Commissioner Inland Revenuedelegatus non potest delegaretax assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal challenging the delegation of the Commissioner’s powers under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether the Commissioner could delegate the authority to amend an assessment order to an Additional Commissioner under Section 210 of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that such delegation is expressly authorized by the statute. The Court emphasized that fiscal statutes must be interpreted literally based on the clear language of the law. It noted that Section 210(1A) explicitly permits the delegation of Section 122(5A) powers to an officer not below the rank of Additional Commissioner, and Section 211 deems such acts as performed by the Commissioner. The Court clarified that while the maxim delegatus non potest delegare is a general principle of public law, it is not absolute and yields to express statutory provisions. Consequently, the delegation of the Commissioner's discretion to amend assessment orders is legally valid, and the Additional Commissioner acts within their authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Commissioner's power to amend an assessment order under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 be delegated to an Additional Commissioner?
  • Does the principle of delegatus non potest delegare prevent the delegation of discretionary powers under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • How should fiscal or taxing statutes be interpreted when the statutory provisions are clear?
  • Are acts performed by an Additional Commissioner under delegated authority treated as having been performed by the Commissioner under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited vs Habib-ur-Rehman and others2023 SCP 180, 2023 SCMR 1232, 2024 PLJ SC 91, 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-25
  pension schemeretirement benefitsstare decisisbinding precedentratio decidendiestoppelbank nationalization
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeal arose from a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by Allied Bank Limited against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding the decree in favour of a retired employee for pension calculations based on last drawn pay. The dispute involved the interpretation of ABL Circular No. P-INST/2002/121 dated 04.09.2002, which introduced a revised retirement benefits scheme freezing basic pay for pension purposes as of 30.06.2002 unless opted otherwise. The core legal questions pertained to whether an employee failing to submit a written option was automatically governed by the new scheme, and whether an unreasoned dismissal of an appeal by a co-equal bench constituted binding precedent under Article 189. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that absent a timely written option, the revised scheme applied automatically. The Court further ruled that an order lacking reasoned adjudication on a question of law is not a binding precedent under Article 189, thereby restoring the trial court's dismissal of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee who fails to submit a written option by the prescribed deadline is automatically governed by a newly introduced revised retirement benefits scheme?
  • Does an employee who opts to continue with an old pension scheme under ABL Circular No. P-INST/2002/121 remain entitled to a pension calculated on frozen basic pay rather than the last drawn pay?
  • Is an employee estopped from challenging the legality or application of a revised retirement scheme after having received benefits thereunder without timely objection?
  • Does a decision of the Supreme Court that lacks articulated reasoning or conscious consideration of a legal issue constitute binding precedent under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited vs Federation of Pakistan Through Collectorate Of Customs, Peshawar and Others2023 PTD 1280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  bank guaranteecontract of guaranteedemand guaranteeexpiry of guaranteegovernment dueslimitation periodsuretyshipconstitutional petitionCustoms Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition seeking to prohibit the Customs Department from encashing bank guarantees. The core legal question was whether bank guarantees, issued with specific expiry dates, could be enforced by the Customs Department after their expiration, especially when the department contended that Section 202 of the Customs Act, 1969, imposed no limitation period for the recovery of government dues. The Supreme Court held that bank guarantees are independent, standalone contracts governed by their express terms, including their expiry dates. The Court ruled that the guarantor bank's obligation to pay was anchored in the contract of guarantee, not the Customs Act. Therefore, the benefit of no limitation period under Section 202 of the Customs Act, 1969, applied only to the principal debtor (the entity owing the government dues) and not to the guarantor bank, whose liability ceased upon the expiry of the guarantee period if no valid demand was made within that time. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bank guarantee be enforced after its specified expiry date?
  • Does Section 202 of the Customs Act, 1969, which provides no limitation for recovery of government dues, apply to a guarantor bank?
  • Are the obligations of a guarantor bank under a bank guarantee independent of the underlying transaction between the principal debtor and the beneficiary?
  • What is the nature of a demand guarantee in Pakistani jurisprudence?
  • Can a High Court disregard the express terms of a bank guarantee when considering its enforceability?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited vs Federation of Pakistan thr. Collectorate of Customs, Peshawar & others2023 SCP 171, 2023 SCMR 1093, 2024 PLJ SC 101, 2023 PTD 1280, PLJ 2024 SC · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  bank guaranteedemand guaranteeencashment of guaranteeexpiry of bank guaranteecustoms dues recoverywrit of prohibitionautonomous contractlimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed the appellant bank's constitutional petition seeking a writ of prohibition against the encashment of five expired bank guarantees by the Customs Department. The core legal question was whether the Customs Department could encash bank guarantees after their stipulated expiration dates on the ground that Section 202 of the Customs Act, 1969 prescribes no period of limitation for recovering government dues. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court judgment, holding that a bank guarantee is an independent, autonomous contract governed strictly by its terms under Chapter VIII of the Contract Act, 1872. The Court ruled that where a demand is not made within the validity period stated in the guarantee, the guarantor stands released from liability. Furthermore, the absence of a limitation period for recovering government dues under Section 202 of the Customs Act applies solely against the principal debtor, not against a third-party guarantor whose contractual obligations have expired.

  Questions settled

  • Can a beneficiary lawfully encash a bank guarantee after the expiry of the validity period stipulated in the guarantee?
  • Does the absence of a statutory limitation period for recovering government dues under Section 202 of the Customs Act 1969 extend the validity period of an expired bank guarantee?
  • Is a guarantor bank liable for the underlying tax dues of a principal debtor after the bank guarantee securing such liability has expired without a timely demand?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited vs Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore and 22023 PTD 411 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-21Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited vs Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore & others2023 PCTLR 49 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-20Read full judgment →
• Allama Iqbal Open University vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 PTD 1205 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-06Read full judgment →
• Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU), through Registrar vs Federation of Pakistan through D.G. Legal for President of Pakistan and 2 others2023 PLJ 61, 2023 PLJ Islamabad 61 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU) through Registrar vs Federation of Pakistan through Director General Legal for President of Pakistan and 2 others2023 CLC 638 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• Allahrakha S/O Muhammad Ramzan vs The State2023 SHC 614 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-27Read full judgment →
• Allah Wadhayo Jagirani vs The State2023 SHC 1154 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-13
  post-arrest bailunlawful assemblycommon objectdacoityabduction for ransomdelay in FIRovert act
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application arising from an FIR involving dacoity, murder, robbery, and abduction for ransom on the CPEC service road. The core legal question concerns whether post-arrest bail should be granted to an accused named in the FIR as a member of an unlawful assembly who was allegedly armed with a weapon, despite arguments regarding delayed FIR registration, false implication due to a prior police encounter involving the applicant's cousin, and the absence of an attributed overt act. The Sindh High Court held that in heinous multi-faceted crimes involving unlawful assembly, common object, robbery, and abduction, the absence of an individual overt act does not entitle an accused to bail when they are specifically named and identified at the scene. The court emphasized that individual roles are weighed differently in isolated murder cases compared to organized dacoities and abductions, and found prima facie sufficient connection alongside the recovery of the weapon and framed charges, while directing the trial court to expedite examination of material witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the lack of a specific overt act disentitles an accused from claiming bail when named as a member of an unlawful assembly in a case involving dacoity, robbery, and abduction?
  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR warrant post-arrest bail when the delay is plausibly explained by post-mortem rituals and recovery efforts through community elders?
  • Whether bail should be refused when an accused is nominated in the FIR, charged, and a weapon matching the identification is recovered upon arrest?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The State2023 YLR 2538 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-24
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurderQatl-i-Amdputrefaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment sentences imposed by the trial court for the murder of the appellant's wife and daughter. The prosecution's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the theory of 'last seen,' an alleged extra-judicial confession, recovery of a weapon, and motive. The Court examined whether this evidence formed a complete, unbroken chain incompatible with the appellant's innocence. Upon review, the Court found the 'last seen' evidence unreliable due to a significant time gap and the advanced state of decomposition of the bodies, which contradicted the prosecution's timeline. Furthermore, the Court rejected the extra-judicial confession as a fragile, fabricated piece of evidence, noted the failure to prove motive, and observed that the prosecution withheld natural witnesses (the appellant's other children). The Court held that circumstantial evidence must be of an unimpeachable character to sustain a conviction and that suspicion cannot substitute for proof. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, and acquitted him.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of 'last seen' evidence without corroboration from other circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the advanced state of putrefaction of a corpse negate the prosecution's timeline regarding the 'last seen' theory?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession that is not supported by independent corroborative evidence?
  • Does the failure to produce natural witnesses in a criminal trial warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Messrs Board of Revenue Azad Jammu And Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and 11 others2023 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 33, 2023 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 127 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Deputy Postmaster General (Admn.), Office of the Postmaster2023 SCMR 770 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-05
  misappropriation of public fundsdismissal from servicecompulsory retirementdisciplinary proceedingsproportionality of punishmentcivil service misconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, a Postmaster, from service. The petitioner had been dismissed following a regular inquiry that found him guilty of misappropriating Rs. 17,43,591/- of public funds. The core legal question was whether the punishment of dismissal from service should be converted into compulsory retirement, considering the petitioner's 34 years of service and his repayment of the misappropriated amount. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. The Court affirmed that misappropriation of public money is a serious offence that undermines public confidence in institutions. It established the principle that long service and the subsequent restitution of misappropriated funds do not constitute mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant leniency in cases of proven financial embezzlement. Granting such leniency would create a dangerous precedent, effectively encouraging civil servants to commit misconduct near the end of their careers with the expectation of receiving retirement benefits despite their proven dishonesty.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repayment of misappropriated public funds mitigate the punishment of dismissal from service for a civil servant?
  • Can long length of service be used as a ground to convert a dismissal order into compulsory retirement in cases of financial embezzlement?
  • Is the misappropriation of public money considered a minor misconduct in disciplinary proceedings?
  • Should a court substitute its own findings for those of a competent authority in disciplinary matters absent unreasonableness or illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Dewayo Shahani vs The State through Prosecutor General, Sindh2023 SCP 311, 2023 SCMR 1724 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-08-17
  post-arrest bailunlawful assemblycommon objectplea of alibicolumn No. 2police ipse dixitvicarious liabilityocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the Sindh High Court's refusal of post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 324, 114, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail primarily on grounds of a minor discrepancy between ocular and medical evidence, the placement of his name in column No. 2 of the challan, and a defense plea of alibi. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, holding that the police's opinion placing an accused in column No. 2 is mere ipse dixit and not binding on the court, particularly when the Magistrate rejected it and summoned the accused. Furthermore, the court held that all members of an armed unlawful assembly sharing a common object to commit murder are vicariously liable under Section 149 PPC. The court affirmed that an unsubstantiated plea of alibi cannot be evaluated or relied upon at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the finding of an investigating agency placing an accused person in column No. 2 of the challan is binding on the court deciding a bail application?
  • Can a plea of alibi be evaluated and considered as a ground for granting bail where it requires factual inquiry during trial?
  • Whether every member of an armed unlawful assembly is vicariously liable under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder committed in prosecution of their common object?
  • Does a minor variation between ocular and medical evidence regarding the exact location of a gunshot injury entitle an accused to bail when a specific role is assigned?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad and 4 others vs Government of Balochistan through Chief2023 PLD Balochistan 31 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-21Read full judgment →
• Allah Bux Soomro vs National Industrial Relations Commission and 072023 SHC 212 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-17
  grievance noticewrongful dismissalIndustrial Relations Actlimitation periodwrit of certiorarilabor lawreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged concurrent orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal from service by the respondent bank. The core legal question was whether a departmental appeal filed by an employee against their dismissal could be treated as a valid "grievance notice" under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, thereby satisfying the statutory limitation period. The High Court held that the NIRC erred in law by strictly applying technical limitation rules to dismiss the petition. The Court ruled that the departmental appeal, filed promptly after the dismissal, served the essential purpose of intimating the employer of the employee's grievance. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, reinstated the petitioner, and ordered the payment of back benefits. The judgment establishes the principle that labor laws should be construed liberally to prevent non-suiting litigants on technicalities, and that a departmental appeal can constitute a valid grievance notice if it effectively communicates the employee's intent to seek redress.

  Questions settled

  • Can a departmental appeal filed by an employee be treated as a valid grievance notice under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to set aside tribunal orders that rely on technical errors of law regarding limitation?
  • Should labor laws be construed liberally to avoid non-suiting litigants on technical grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bux Brohi vs Government of Sindh, Omer Khalil Jan2023 SHC 1022, 2024 MLD 1927 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-28Read full judgment →
• All Workmen Employed by Dandot Cement Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Messrs2023 PLC 76 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-19
  closure of establishmentBMRretrenchmentindustrial disputeStanding Orders Ordinanceconsent decreemanagerial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the All Workmen Employed by Dandot Cement Company (Pvt.) Ltd. challenging the orders of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, whereby the Respondent Company's application under Standing Order 11-A of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 for closure of its manufacturing unit and undertaking comprehensive Balancing, Modernization and Replacement (BMR) was accepted. The core legal questions involved whether the Labour Court and Tribunal were bound by a past compromise agreement from 1992, whether alternative statutory remedies were available, and whether the retrenchment of workmen was permissible in law. The Lahore High Court held that an employer has an unfettered, bona fide managerial right to reorganize its business, close obsolete units, and undertake BMR due to financial losses and environmental hazards, provided statutory safeguards and retrenchment benefits are paid. The Court dismissed the petition, establishing that closure for modernization based on commercial viability and environmental compliance is permissible under the law and does not violate past consent decrees where changed circumstances exist.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employer can close down an establishment or manufacturing unit under Standing Order 11-A of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 for undertaking Balancing, Modernization and Replacement (BMR)?
  • Does a past consent decree or compromise agreement perpetually bind a subsequent management against closing down an industrial unit suffering from continuous financial losses and environmental hazards?
  • What is the legal status and effect of a consent decree in relation to a contract between parties in industrial litigation?
  • Whether an employer possesses the exclusive managerial discretion to reorganize its business and retrench surplus staff for commercial viability and operational efficiency?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Tasleem vs Court of IXth Adj, Karachi-East and others2023 PLJ Karachi 173 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-20Read full judgment →
• Ali Taj, Afzaar @ Afzaal vs The State2023 SCP 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  prompt FIRocular evidenceinjured witnesspolice witnessidentification parademedical evidenceforensic reportcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises out of concurrent findings of conviction and sentence rendered by the trial court and the high court, where the petitioners were tried and convicted under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti Terrorism Act 1997 for murder, assault, and escaping custody. The core legal questions addressed involve the appreciation of ocular evidence, the evidentiary value of injured and police witnesses, the corroborative weight of medical evidence and forensic reports, and the reliability of an identification parade. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the promptly lodged FIR, trustworthy testimonies of injured eye-witnesses corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, and successful identification parade established the prosecution's case beyond a shadow of doubt. The Court reaffirmed that minor discrepancies do not dilute credible ocular accounts and that official police witnesses are as competent as private witnesses unless animus is proven.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prompt lodging of an FIR excludes the possibility of deliberation and consultation?
  • Can the testimony of injured police officials be relied upon as credible ocular evidence in the absence of proven animosity?
  • Whether trustworthy ocular evidence takes precedence over conflicting medical evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of minor discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of eye-witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Taj and another vs The State2023 SCMR 900 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-12
  prompt FIRinjured eye-witnessespolice witnessesidentification paradeforensic ballistics reportcapital punishmentminor discrepanciesmedical evidence conflict
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arose from an Anti-Terrorism Court judgment convicting the petitioners under Sections 302(b), 324, 353, 186, 341, 396, 412, 225, and 148 PPC, along with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and sentencing them to death for firing upon a vehicle transporting an accused, causing the death of a police constable and driver, and injuring two officers. The High Court maintained the convictions. The Supreme Court considered whether the ocular testimony of injured police officials, supported by a prompt FIR, identification parade, forensic reports, and medical evidence, was sufficient to sustain the capital conviction despite alleged contradictions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and refused leave to appeal, holding that police officials are reliable witnesses whose testimonies carry equal weight to private witnesses unless animus is proved. Furthermore, prompt lodging of the FIR ruled out fabrication, and minor trivial discrepancies that do not shatter the salient features of the prosecution case must be ignored when ocular evidence read as a whole inspires confidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of police officials be relied upon to sustain a conviction on a capital charge in the absence of private witnesses?
  • Does a prompt FIR exclude the possibility of deliberation and fabrication of a false prosecution story?
  • Whether minor discrepancies between medical evidence and trustworthy ocular account are sufficient to discard prosecution evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade conducted in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Taj and another vs StatePLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  ocular evidenceinjured witnessidentification parademedical evidencepolice witnesscriminal appealanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a judgment of the High Court maintaining the convictions and sentences of the petitioners for the murder of two individuals and causing injuries to others during an armed attack. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence provided by injured police officials, the impact of alleged contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and the validity of the identification parade. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case through prompt FIR registration, consistent testimonies of injured witnesses, and corroborative forensic evidence. The Court affirmed that the testimony of police officials is as credible as that of private witnesses unless animus is proven. Furthermore, the Court held that where ocular evidence is trustworthy and confidence-inspiring, it prevails over medical evidence, and minor discrepancies in witness statements do not negate the prosecution's case if the material aspects remain consistent. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitions and refused leave to appeal, upholding the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of police officials inherently less reliable than that of private witnesses in criminal trials?
  • Does a conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence alone if minor discrepancies exist in the prosecution's narrative?
  • Is the conduct of an identification parade an immutable ritual whose non-performance leads to the failure of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1619 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-16
  narcotic possessionretrospective application of lawcriminal appealsentencing guidelinesconstitutional protectionControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 3000 grams of charas. The core legal question concerns whether the enhanced penalties introduced by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act 2022, promulgated after the date of the offense, can be applied retrospectively to the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of narcotics, establishing the appellant's guilt. However, regarding the sentence, the Court ruled that applying the 2022 Amendment to an offense committed prior to its promulgation violates Article 12 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which prohibits the retrospective application of penal laws. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, reducing the term of imprisonment from nine years to three years and the fine from Rs. 80,000 to Rs. 30,000, citing the principle that penal statutes cannot be enforced retrospectively to the detriment of an accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a penal statute be applied retrospectively to enhance the punishment for an offense committed before the law's enactment?
  • Does the application of a new sentencing scheme to a past offense violate Article 12 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Is a sentence based on an amendment promulgated after the commission of an offense legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher Leghari and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1461 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-10
  post-arrest bailhardship baildelay in trialright to fair trialexpeditious trialanti-terrorismstatutory delay
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought post-arrest bail exclusively on hardship grounds in a heinous criminal case registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, relating to an attack on a police check post resulting in multiple deaths. The core legal question was whether the prolonged incarceration of the applicants for over nine and eleven years, without any delay caused by them, coupled with little prospect of the trial concluding in the foreseeable future, warranted the grant of bail on the ground of unconscionable delay and violation of the right to a speedy trial under the Constitution. The court held that the inordinate delay reaching a shocking and unconscionable level, attributable entirely to the State and repeated restarts of the trial due to the arrest of absconding co-accused, entitled the applicants to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that an accused cannot be indefinitely incarcerated pending trial as a form of punishment, and prolonged detention without fault on the part of the accused, violating the constitutional right to an expeditious trial, constitutes sufficient hardship to justify granting bail despite the gravity of the offense.

  Questions settled

  • Whether prolonged incarceration without trial can constitute a ground for post-arrest bail in heinous offenses?
  • Does an inordinate and unconscionable delay in concluding a trial, not attributable to the accused, justify the grant of bail on hardship grounds?
  • Can bail be refused as a form of punishment when the trial is unlikely to conclude in the foreseeable future?
  • Does the right to an expeditious trial under the Constitution override the severity of the charge when considering hardship bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher Bangulani and another vs The State2023 YLR 1655 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-30
  police encounterocular evidencemedical corroborationcriminal appealmurder convictionassault on public servantappreciation of evidencesentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a police encounter resulting in the death of a police constable and injuries to others. The trial court convicted the appellants, Ali Sher and Khathoor Bangulani, for murder, attempted murder, and assault on public servants. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of evidence to sustain these convictions, specifically whether ocular testimony from police witnesses was reliable and whether medical evidence corroborated the specific injuries attributed to each appellant. The High Court held that while the ocular account regarding appellant Ali Sher was consistent, reliable, and corroborated by forensic evidence, the prosecution failed to prove the firearm injury attributed to appellant Khathoor, as medical reports indicated a lacerated wound rather than a gunshot injury. Consequently, the court maintained Ali Sher’s conviction but set aside Khathoor’s convictions for murder and attempted murder, maintaining only his conviction for assaulting a public servant. The court laid down the principle that while police officials are competent witnesses, medical evidence serves as a confirmatory tool; where ocular testimony regarding specific injuries contradicts medical findings, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of police officials be discarded solely on the ground that they are police employees?
  • Does a discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the nature of an injury necessitate the acquittal of an accused for that specific charge?
  • Is medical evidence considered confirmatory in nature when evaluating the reliability of ocular accounts?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher Alias Sheeri and others vs The State and others2023 MLD 395 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-18
  compromisecompounding of offencesdiyatminors' sharelife imprisonmentacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application for compromise under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in an appeal filed by convicts sentenced to life imprisonment and other terms under sections 148, 149, 302(b), 324, 337-A(i), and 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a compromise already acted upon in 2012 regarding some co-accused could be extended to the remaining petitioners, and whether the prosecution could demand a differential amount of Diyat for minors due to a lapse of time. The Lahore High Court held that the application represented a reaffirmation of the previous valid compromise rather than a new one, and that enhancement of Diyat is not a legal right once settled. The court laid down the principle that once a compromise is freely entered into and accepted, it cannot be rescinded or subjected to the payment of differential Diyat amounts for minors simply due to the passage of time, and that free consent without coercion remains the paramount condition for accepting a compromise.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a compromise already accepted by the court for certain co-accused can be extended to the remaining appellants subsequently?
  • Can legal heirs demand an enhanced or differential amount of Diyat for minors when a prior compromise has already been executed and acted upon?
  • What are the guiding principles for a court to determine the validity of a compromise in criminal cases involving Qatl-i-amd?
  • Whether a compromise once effected and acted upon can be rescinded or subjected to new financial conditions?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab etc.2023 LHC 5335, 2025 PLJ Lahore 64 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-19Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs The State etc2023 LHC 2950, 2024 PCRLJ 658, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 314 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-22
  post-arrest bailAnti-terrorism Court jurisdictionscheduled offencestransfer of casefiring in court premisesrevisional jurisdictioncognizance of offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail concerned an FIR registered for offences including attempted murder and arms possession, where the incident occurred within court premises. The core legal question was whether an offence involving firing in court premises, despite stemming from personal vendetta rather than terrorism, falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Anti-terrorism Court (ATC) pursuant to the Third Schedule of the Anti-terrorism Act, 1997. The Court held that Entry 4 of the Third Schedule explicitly mandates that offences such as firing in court premises are exclusively triable by an ATC, regardless of whether the act constitutes terrorism. The Court affirmed that while ordinary courts may initially receive such cases, they lack jurisdiction to try them and must transfer them to the ATC. The Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction and powers under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to withdraw the case from the Magistrate and transfer it to the ATC, Sahiwal, for trial, noting that the ATC may proceed from the stage at which the case was pending.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence of firing in court premises fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of an Anti-terrorism Court even if it does not constitute an act of terrorism?
  • Can a court of ordinary jurisdiction transfer a case directly to an Anti-terrorism Court once cognizance has been taken?
  • Is an Anti-terrorism Court considered a subordinate court to the High Court for the purpose of transferring cases under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an Anti-terrorism Court have the authority to proceed with a trial from the stage at which it was pending before transfer from an ordinary court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs Sahabuddin2023 CLC 1523 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-18Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz through L.Rs. and others vs Mst. Zainab through L.Rs. and others2023 CLC 1128 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-11Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz Shah through duly authorized attorney vs Election Commission2023 YLR 2241 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-12Read full judgment →
• Ali Mushtaq & Others vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2023 SHC 10 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-19Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Fida Hussain and 4 others2023 MLD 39 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-11-06Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad S/o Moin Uddin vs The State2023 SHC 558 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Mardan Shah & Others vs Mushtaque & Others2023 SHC 858, 2024 PLD Sindh 121 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-26Read full judgment →
• Ali Mardan Gopang vs The State2023 SHC 984 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-01
  criminal appealpolice encounternighttime identificationocular and medical conflictbenefit of reasonable doubtmurderanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 302, 324, 353, 147, 148, 149 Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, arising from a police encounter resulting in the death of a police constable. The core legal questions involved the reliability of nighttime identification based solely on vehicle headlights, glaring contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the cause and time of death, and the benefit of reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the appellant and the circumstances of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly due to a lack of evidence regarding the vehicle used for identification, unexplained discrepancies in the post-mortem report, and discriminatory treatment of co-accused. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, laid down the principle that benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as of right when material contradictions exist, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether nighttime identification of unknown accused persons through vehicle headlights alone is reliable without corroborative sources of light?
  • How should material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the cause and time of death be resolved?
  • Does the principle of benefit of the doubt apply when the prosecution fails to eliminate reasonable possibilities of innocence?
  • What is the legal effect when an investigating officer lets off a co-accused assigned an identical role without justification?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Mansoor vs Area Judicial Magistrate, etc2023 LHC 5767, 2024 PLJ Lahore 315 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-03Read full judgment →
• Ali Jan vs The State2023 YLR 89 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-24
  confessional statementmurder referencebenefit of the doubtmedical evidenceunseen crimecriminal appealcapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction and death sentence handed down to the appellant for the murder of a domestic worker in an unseen, blind crime. The core legal questions involved the reliability and voluntariness of a confessional statement recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the corroboration of medical evidence with the confession, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case because the confessional statement contradicted the medical evidence, suffered from procedural defects by the recording magistrate, and lacked corroboration, while the alleged motive remained unproven. The court laid down the principle that a confessional statement must be voluntary, true, and corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, and that any material contradictions between the confession and the medical evidence render the prosecution's case doubtful, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on the sole basis of a confessional statement that contradicts the medical evidence?
  • What are the essential requirements for relying on a confessional statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the failure of a magistrate to follow mandatory procedures while recording a confession render the statement inadmissible?
  • When is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt in a blind murder case where the motive remains unproven?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan, etc vs Major (Retired) Masood Saeed Khan, etc2023 LHC 2985 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-09Read full judgment →