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.

• Aftab Hussain and 3 others vs The State and another2023 YLR 1585 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-20
  criminal revisionattempted murdermedical evidenceocular accountbenefit of doubtinjured witnessappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision challenged the convictions of the petitioners for offenses including attempted murder and causing hurt. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant contradictions between the ocular account and the medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof. The court emphasized that the mere presence of injuries does not render a witness's testimony truthful, and that medical evidence contradicting the ocular account necessitates the benefit of doubt being extended to the accused. Furthermore, the court noted that the prosecution relied on the quantity of witnesses rather than the quality of their testimony, which was found to be unreliable due to improvements and inconsistencies. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the petitioners, reiterating that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that any doubt regarding the guilt of the accused must be resolved in their favor.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injuries on a witness automatically render their testimony truthful?
  • How should a court resolve a case where there is a clear contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular account?
  • Is the quantity of witnesses a sufficient basis for conviction in a criminal trial?
  • What is the standard of proof required for a criminal conviction in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ali s/o Mehmood Azam, caste Mughal r/o Nai Abadi Barotiyan2023 SC AJK 46 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-06-13
  sodomychild sexual abusesolitary testimony of victimdelay in FIRplea of alibicriminal appealmedical evidenceprotection of minor identity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant for committing sodomy upon a minor under section 377 of the Azad Penal Code. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecution witnesses, the effect of delay in lodging the FIR and sending clothes for chemical examination, the admissibility of hearsay and related witnesses, and the consideration of the plea of alibi. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the appeal, holding that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not impair a credible prosecution case, that delay caused by societal pressure and familial consultation in sensitive child sexual abuse cases is natural, and that the solitary, confidence-inspiring testimony of the victim supported by medical evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court laid down the principle that in heinous offenses like child sodomy, the unblemished and trustworthy testimony of the victim carries utmost sanctity, and courts must adopt an iron-handed approach without leniency toward perpetrators to safeguard children's welfare and ensure deterrence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the solitary testimony of a minor victim of sodomy is sufficient to base a conviction if it inspires confidence?
  • Does a delay in lodging the FIR vitiate the prosecution case in sensitive child sexual abuse matters where family reputation and societal pressures are involved?
  • Are minor discrepancies and natural variations in the statements of prosecution witnesses fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Whether related witnesses can be relied upon to support a conviction for sodomy in the absence of animosity or false implication motive?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Alam and another vs Secretary Home & Tribal Affairs, Govt. of KPK, Peshawar and others2023 PHC 265, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 1, 2024 PLD Peshawar 112 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-31Read full judgment →
• Afsar Khan vs The State & another2023 PHC 82, 2024 YLR 210 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-22Read full judgment →
• Afsar Khan & others vs Mst. Ghulam Bibi through Legal Heirs & others2023 PHC 56, 2024 MLD 61 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-06Read full judgment →
• Afsar Ali and others vs Kohistanay through LRs and others2023 CLC 1985 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-10Read full judgment →
• Afrasiab Khan vs The State etc2023 PHC 261, 2024 MLD 180 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-16Read full judgment →
• Afnan Farid and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 PLC (C.S) 837 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-29
  Constitutional petitionCivil serviceProfessional engineeringRules of BusinessAppointment and promotionJurisdiction of High CourtPakistan Engineering CouncilTerms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a notification issued by the Ministry of Housing and Works reserving 10% of Executive Engineer (BS-18) posts for B.Tech degree holders. The core legal questions were whether the Ministry possessed the lawful authority to issue this notification without mandatory consultation with the Establishment Division, and whether such appointments contravened the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976. The Court held that the notification was issued without lawful authority, as it failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 and the Rules of Business, 1973, which necessitate Establishment Division consultation for altering civil service terms. The Court affirmed that professional engineering work, as defined by the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976, must be performed by licensed professional engineers, and B.Tech degree holders do not possess recognized engineering qualifications for such roles. The judgment establishes that administrative actions must strictly adhere to prescribed statutory procedures and that the High Court retains jurisdiction under Article 199 to review the legality of such instruments, distinct from individual service grievances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to challenge a government notification regarding service terms if the challenge is based on lack of lawful authority rather than an individual service grievance?
  • Is a Ministry authorized to unilaterally modify the terms and conditions of civil servants without consultation with the Establishment Division?
  • Can B.Tech degree holders be classified as professional engineers under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976?
  • Does the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 mandate that professional engineering work be performed exclusively by licensed professional engineers?
  Read full judgment →
• Afiya Shehrbano Zia & others vs The Hon'ble Supreme Judicial Council &2023 SCP 186, 2023 PLD Supreme Court 510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-06-27
  Supreme Judicial Counciljudicial accountabilitymisconductretirement of judgeconstitutional petitioncase management
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 raised core questions regarding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Judicial Council over judges who retire or resign while complaints are pending, and whether the Supreme Court can issue case-management guidelines to structure the Council's discretion. The Supreme Court held that Article 209 applies exclusively to judges currently holding office, and the sole action permissible upon a finding of misconduct is removal from office, rendering proceedings impossible and abated once a judge retires or resigns. The Court further held that it would be inappropriate to issue prescriptive guidelines or directions to regulate the Council's docket or internal case management, as the Council must retain the flexibility to control its own affairs. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that the constitutional scheme does not contemplate post-retirement inquiries or judicial micromanagement of the Council's internal procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 209 of the Constitution apply to a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court who has already retired or resigned?
  • Can the Supreme Judicial Council proceed with a pending complaint or reference against a judge after he has ceased to hold office?
  • Whether the Supreme Court can issue directions or guidelines to structure the Supreme Judicial Council's discretion regarding the priority, listing, and hearing of complaints?
  Read full judgment →
• Afaq Razzaq vs Additional District Judge, Mirpur and another2023 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 37 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-03-03Read full judgment →
• Afaq Razzaq vs Additional District Judge Mirpur and another2023 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 134 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-03-02Read full judgment →
• Afaq Khan vs State through Advocate General, Azad Jammu and Kashmir2023 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 98 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Adnan Siddique and others vs Director Public Instruction (Dpi) Colleges2023 PLJ AJ&K 143 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Adnan Shazib vs Azad Jammu And Kashmir Public Service Commission2023 PLC (C.S.) 223 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-06-09
  writ petitionpublic service commissionprobation periodwithheld postwaiting merit listcivil serviceappointment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a candidate for the post of Lecturer Statistics B-17, challenged the action of the respondents in withholding a vacant post at the time of requisitioning vacancies to the Public Service Commission. The petitioner, who was at the top of the waiting merit list, argued that a post had become vacant following the permanent induction of another lecturer into a university. The respondents contended that the post was not permanently vacant at the time of requisition because the inducted lecturer was on a two-year probation period. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir analyzed Section 5 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servant Act, 1976, and held that unless a probation period is subject to passing a specific examination, test, or training, the post from which the civil servant was transferred is deemed vacant from the date of their new appointment. Finding that the respondents had acted inconsistently and withheld the post, the Court accepted the writ petition and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a post is deemed vacant for the purpose of requisition during the probation period of a civil servant transferred to another department?
  • Does a probation period that does not require passing any examination, test, or training prevent a previous post from being treated as vacant?
  • Can a candidate on a waiting merit list seek a direction for appointment if the department withheld a vacant post at the time of requisition?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Gul and another vs The State2023 YLR 289 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-14
  narcotics controlFSL reportsecondary evidencerecovery at spotburden of proofcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court (CNS), Peshawar, convicting the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life for the alleged recovery of 20 kg of heroin. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of secondary evidence for a misplaced FSL report, the legality of conducting proceedings at the police station rather than the spot of recovery, and the sufficiency of prosecution witnesses in narcotics cases carrying capital or life sentences. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the inadmissible duplicate FSL report, unexplained failure to conduct proceedings at the spot, and non-production of material witnesses. The court laid down the principle that a duplicate FSL report cannot be relied upon as secondary evidence without proper foundation and permission, and that in cases carrying capital punishment or life imprisonment, the prosecution must produce maximum available witnesses to ensure proof beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a duplicate FSL report be admitted and relied upon as secondary evidence without formal permission and proof of the original's loss?
  • Does failure to scribe the murasila at the spot of recovery and instead bringing the accused and vehicle to the police station create doubt in the prosecution case?
  • Is it mandatory for the prosecution to produce maximum available witnesses in cases carrying capital punishment or imprisonment for life?
  • Whether the prosecution must prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt through concrete and confidence-inspiring evidence for a conviction to be sustained?
  Read full judgment →
• Adeel Zahoor Malik through Attorney and another vs Abdul Sattar Shaikh2023 YLR 187 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-15
  illegal dispossessionofficial assigneelawful authoritycriminal revisioncivil court decreepossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order passed by the Additional Judge dismissing a criminal complaint filed under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, regarding dispossession from the subject property by the Official Assignee. The core legal question was whether dispossession carried out pursuant to a judgment and decree of a competent civil court through the Official Assignee constitutes illegal dispossession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Sindh High Court held that actions taken under a lawful authority or a competent court's order do not constitute an offence of illegal dispossession, and a complaint under the Act is incompetent where the entry or possession is backed by lawful authority. The court laid down the principle that the Illegal Dispossession Act applies exclusively to actions lacking lawful authority, and execution or implementation of a civil court decree by an officer of the court cannot be criminalized under the statute.

  Questions settled

  • Does dispossession carried out pursuant to a judgment and decree of a competent civil court constitute illegal dispossession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Is a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act maintainable against a person acting under lawful authority?
  • Can a criminal court exercising criminal jurisdiction discuss the legality or competence of a civil court's directions in a revision application?
  Read full judgment →
• Adeel Manzoor vs The State and others2023 SCMR 967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-21
  pre-arrest bailmala fidesuppression of factscriminal breachconsistency of role
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court declining pre-arrest bail to the petitioner Adeel Manzoor in case FIR No. 647 dated 07.04.2022 registered under sections 380 and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sundar District Lahore. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail in light of mala fide on the part of the complainant, suppression of material facts regarding family litigation over dowry articles, and the principle of consistency with a co-accused whose bail was confirmed. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, confirming the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner. The Court laid down the principle that where the complainant suppresses material facts and background civil litigation between relatives out of mala fide, and the petitioner's case is at par with a co-accused granted relief, pre-arrest bail ought to be confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the complainant suppresses material facts and background civil litigation?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply when the role of the petitioner is at par with a co-accused whose bail has been confirmed?
  • Can suppression of family disputes and prior court proceedings in an FIR establish mala fide for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Adeel Manzoor vs State and othersPLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-21
  pre-arrest bailmala fidesuppression of factscriminal breachdowry articles execution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition impugning the order of the Lahore High Court declining pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, Adeel Manzoor, in case FIR No. 647 registered under Sections 850 and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 relating to allegations of theft of household articles. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner has established sufficient mala fide and ulterior motives on the part of the complainant to warrant the confirmation of pre-arrest bail, particularly considering prior family litigation, an ex-parte decree for the recovery of dowry articles, the visit of the court bailiff on the date of occurrence, and the suppression of material facts in the FIR. The Supreme Court held that the suppression of vital facts by the complainant, coupled with the parity of the petitioner's case with a co-accused whose bail was not challenged, established mala fide. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, confirming the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that the suppression of material facts and civil litigation history between parties in a criminal complaint can establish mala fide, entitling the accused to pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the suppression of material facts in an FIR by the complainant can establish mala fide for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the principle of parity apply when determining the pre-arrest bail of an accused whose role is identical to a co-accused?
  • Can prior civil litigation and execution proceedings regarding dowry articles affect the bona fides of a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Adeel Manzar and others vs Mst. Naeem Akhtar and others2023 LHC 3656 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-16Read full judgment →
• Additional Registrar of Companies vs Messrs B4usoft (Private) Limited2023 CLD 111 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-19Read full judgment →
• Additional Collector, Headquarter, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Revenue Authority, Peshawar vs Messrs Schlumberger Seaco Incorporated, Islamabad2023 PTD (Trib.) 1380 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2020-12-16Read full judgment →
• Additional Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate of Preventive, Collector of Customs (Preventive) vs M_s. Agp (Pvt.) Ltd, M_s. Agp (Pvt.) Ltd2023 SHC 224 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-21Read full judgment →
• Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication), at Model Custom, Collaborate, Abdara Road, Peshawar & two others vs Hidayat Ullah S_O Zarab Din and one other2023 PHC 78, 2024 PTD 226 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-16Read full judgment →
• Adbul Waheed vs The State2023 PHC 526 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-02Read full judgment →
• Adam Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Cane Commissioner Punjab, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 249 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-13Read full judgment →
• Adam Khan vs Ghulam Rasool and another2023 CLC 129 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →
• Adam Khan son of Khamiso Khan, Muhammad Ali son of Muhammad2023 SHC 467, 2024 YLR 2831 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-02
  murderdeath sentenceocular testimonyballistic reportmedical evidencerelated witnessescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder and other offences under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involve the credibility of ocular testimony, the corroboration of eyewitness accounts by medical and ballistic evidence, the effect of witness relationships to the deceased, and the promptness of the FIR lodging. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony, corroborative medical and ballistic reports matching the recovered crime weapon with empties, and prompt reporting. The court laid down that reliable and confidence-inspiring ocular testimony, when corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, and mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render their testimony untrustworthy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony, when consistent and confidence-inspiring, can sustain a capital conviction without further corroboration?
  • Does the mere relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased render their testimony untrustworthy or inadmissible?
  • Whether the fact that eyewitnesses remained unhurt during a firing incident is sufficient ground to discard their evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a ballistic expert's report matching crime empties with an accused's recovered weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Adam Amin Chaudhry And Another vs National Accountability Bureau2023 PLJ Islamabad 220, 2023 P Cr. L J 1536 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-19
  unfreezing of bank accountsjurisdictional thresholdtransfer of referencepublic at largesupplementary referenceinterim orderinherent jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Islamabad High Court seeking the unfreezing and release of the petitioners' movable and immovable properties, including bank accounts. The petitioners were being tried under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 for public cheating through an illegal investment scheme. Following the National Accountability (Amendment) Acts of 2022, which restricted the jurisdiction of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) based on monetary thresholds and the number of victims, the Accountability Court returned the reference to the Bureau. The petitioners contended that the freezing orders had lost efficacy as the reference was no longer pending. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 4(3) of the Ordinance explicitly mandates the 'transfer' of pending matters to competent courts rather than their 'return' to the Bureau. The Court ruled that such a transfer does not amount to an acquittal or discharge, and that the freezing orders remain valid until modified by a competent court subsequently taking cognizance of the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the return of a reference by an Accountability Court due to statutory amendments on jurisdiction automatically terminates or invalidates interim freezing orders passed during the trial?
  • Does Section 4(3) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 mandate the 'transfer' of pending proceedings to a competent court or their 'return' to the National Accountability Bureau?
  • Whether an order returning a reference to the investigating agency without determining guilt or innocence constitutes a final judgment for the purposes of the bar on review under Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to correct an improper order of return and ensure the transfer of proceedings to a competent court?
  Read full judgment →
• Adam Amin Chaudhry & another vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB)2023 IHC 3 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-20Read full judgment →
• Acquisition of Upto % Shareholding of Messrs Central Depository Company2023 CLD 475 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2023-03-21Read full judgment →
• Abu Bakar Siddiq Bhutta vs Govt of Punjab, etc2023 LHC 2661 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-18Read full judgment →
• Abu Bakar alias Samosa, etc, Master Ansar, Shazia Siddique vs The State2023 LHC 6759, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 720, 2024 YLR 1510 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-21
  murder trialdelayed FIRchance witnessappreciation of evidencedigital evidence admissibilityacquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencedishonest improvement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions and sentences for murder, alongside a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal and a revision for sentence enhancement. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account, the impact of unexplained delay in FIR registration, the admissibility of digital evidence (video CD), and the validity of the acquittal of co-accused persons. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It found the delay in FIR registration unexplained, as the prosecution failed to produce hospital records substantiating the alleged timeline of medical treatment. Furthermore, the ocular witnesses were deemed 'chance witnesses' whose testimonies contained dishonest improvements and contradictions. The Court also ruled that the digital evidence was inadmissible due to the non-production of the original recording device. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, while dismissing the petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of co-accused, citing the double presumption of innocence. The key principle laid down is that unexplained delay in FIR registration and the presence of dishonest improvements in witness testimony are fatal to the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR, without supporting hospital records, entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Can a video recording be admitted as evidence if the original recording device is not produced before the court?
  • Does an acquittal by a trial court create a double presumption of innocence that cannot be disturbed without strong grounds?
  • Are witnesses who lack a residence or business at the scene of the occurrence considered 'chance witnesses' whose testimony requires independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Abu Bakar vs The State and others2023 PCRLJ 1235 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-10
  criminal appealmurder convictionocular evidencedishonest improvementdelayed FIRsuppression of injuriesproclamation proceedingsacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt based on the ocular account, medical evidence, and recovery of the weapon. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court observed that the FIR was registered with an unexplained delay, indicating deliberation. Furthermore, the ocular witnesses made dishonest improvements to their statements to align with medical evidence, rendering their testimony unreliable. The Court also noted the suppression of injuries sustained by another victim, the lack of reliable identification evidence, and the inconclusive forensic report regarding the recovered weapon. Additionally, the proclamation proceedings were found to be procedurally defective. The Court reaffirmed the principle that where prosecution witnesses introduce dishonest improvements to align with medical evidence, their testimony must be discarded, and that suppressed injuries undermine the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in the registration of an FIR, without explanation, undermine the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal consequence when prosecution witnesses introduce dishonest improvements to align their testimony with medical evidence?
  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by other victims during an occurrence affect the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Are proclamation and warrant proceedings valid if they fail to meet mandatory statutory requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Abrar Ahmed Junior Drawing Teacher vs Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and 7 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 289 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-03-17
  writ petitionservice matterseniority and promotionlocus standiconstitutional jurisdictiondepartmental statutory rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, seeking directions for the official respondents to promote the petitioner as a Senior Drawing Teacher, place his name at the top of the seniority list, and restrain respondents from filling the vacant post. The core legal questions involved whether a writ petition is maintainable for determining seniority and promotion disputes involving disputed questions of fact, and whether the petitioner had the requisite length of service and locus standi. The High Court held that seniority and promotion are administrative matters falling within the domain of the competent authority and cannot be determined through writ jurisdiction, especially when the petitioner lacks the requisite length of service under the departmental rules and has failed to implead necessary parties or substantiate claims with reliable evidence. The court laid down the principle that disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in constitutional writ jurisdiction and that a petitioner must substantiate claims with solid record evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court determine seniority and promotion disputes in exercise of its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • Whether an employee lacking the requisite length of service prescribed by departmental rules can claim promotion?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable when it raises disputed questions of fact without supporting record evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abizar S/O Abid Hussain & Another vs The State2023 SHC 534 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-10Read full judgment →
• Abidullah vs The State2023 YLR 2629 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-22
  murderocular testimonyballistic expertbenefit of doubtunlawful assemblycommon objectmedical evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences handed down by the trial court under sections 302(b), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a criminal revision for enhancement of sentences. The core legal question revolved around the reliability of ocular testimony, the corroborative value of a negative forensic science laboratory report regarding weapon matching, and the sustainability of joint liability under an unlawful assembly where specific roles for simple injuries overlapped. The Peshawar High Court held that direct, creditworthy testimony of injured eyewitnesses sufficiently establishes guilt for murder even when ballistic reports are negative, as expert evidence remains purely confirmatory. However, where multiple accused are charged with minor, unspecified injuries without clear attribution of specific blows, the principle of benefit of the doubt requires acquittal. The court laid down that negative ballistic findings do not undermine a prosecution case firmly anchored in direct ocular evidence, and that the acquittal of co-accused for non-specific simple injuries does not vitiate the conviction of a principal offender whose role is distinctly proven.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a negative forensic science laboratory report regarding weapon matching is fatal to a prosecution case otherwise established through direct ocular testimony?
  • Can the acquittal of co-accused charged with non-specific simple injuries on the basis of benefit of the doubt serve as a ground for the acquittal of the principal accused whose specific role in a murder is proven by trustworthy eyewitnesses?
  • Whether members of an assembly can be convicted under sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the occurrence arose suddenly out of a trivial altercation without premeditation?
  • Is expert medical and ballistic evidence considered substantive proof or merely confirmatory and corroborative in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Abidullah vs State2023 PHC 58 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-22Read full judgment →
• Abida Sughra Farooqi vs Province of Punjab through its Secretary Labour &2023 LHC 5462 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-25Read full judgment →
• Abida Sharif etc vs Department of Elementary and Secondary Education2023 PLJ AJ&K 42 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Abid Sherani vs Tahir Sherani through Legal Heirs and others2023 PLJ Peshawar 11 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-21Read full judgment →
• Abid Shahid Zuberi, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, Muqtedir Akh_4b2c98492023 SCP 275, 2023 SCMR 2028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-08
  recusal of judgeconflict of interestjudicial independenceaudio leaks commissionrule of necessityjudicial biascode of conduct for judgesseparation of powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment decides Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 3932 of 2023, filed by the Federal Government seeking the recusal of Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial from a Bench hearing Constitution Petitions Nos. 14 to 17 of 2023. These petitions challenged the notification constituting a Presidential Inquiry Commission to probe leaked audio recordings, including one allegedly involving a relative of the Chief Justice. The Federal Government argued recusal was required under Article IV of the Code of Conduct for Judges due to a conflict of interest. The Supreme Court dismissed the application, holding that conflict of interest requires a direct, certain, real, and immediate financial, proprietary, or personal interest in the subject matter. The Court found no such direct interest was established. It reiterated that under Pakistani jurisprudence and Islamic principles, a judge's conscience determines recusal unless direct disqualification exists, and unproven or speculative allegations cannot compel withdrawal. The Court condemned the recusal plea as an unmeritorious attempt to delay constitutional adjudication and compromise judicial independence.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes a disqualifying 'conflict of interest' requiring a judge's recusal from a bench?
  • Whether an unverified audio leak mentioning a judge's relative creates a direct legal or personal interest disqualifying the judge from hearing constitutional challenges to an Inquiry Commission?
  • Does the rule of necessity apply to permit a judge to sit on a bench when no valid ground for disqualification exists?
  • Whether the determination to recuse on grounds of conflict of interest or bias rests ultimately with the discretion and conscience of the judge concerned?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Rehman vs Farooq Umar Bhoja and othersPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 757 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-20
  speaking orderjudicial reasoningcriminal revisioncharge alterationQatl-bis-sababSection 302 PPCjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which altered the charge against the accused from Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 322, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding a fatal plane crash. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s order was legally sustainable when it failed to provide reasons for its conclusion to alter the charge. The High Court held that the impugned order was legally unsustainable because it lacked the essential reasoning required for a judicial decision. The court emphasized that a judicial order must be a 'speaking order,' demonstrating that the court has applied its mind to the evidence and facts of the case. Since the trial court failed to explain how the evidence led to the conclusion that Section 321, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applied instead of Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh, reasoned decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is a judicial order that fails to provide reasons for its conclusion legally sustainable?
  • Must a trial court provide specific reasons when altering a charge under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a 'speaking order' require a court to demonstrate the application of its mind to the evidence on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Jan vs Ministry of Defence through its Secretary, Islamabad and others2023 SCP 194, 2023 PLC (C.S) 1456, 2023 SCMR 1451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-04-04
  service appeallimitationactus curiae neminem gravabitex debito justitiaeprocedural justiceFederal Service Tribunalwrit petition conversiondismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal challenges the Federal Service Tribunal's (FST) dismissal of a service appeal on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner, a civil servant, initially filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was subsequently converted into a service appeal and remitted to the FST. The FST dismissed the appeal in limine, citing it as time-barred based on the date of receipt, ignoring the procedural timeline of the High Court's remittance. The Supreme Court held that the FST erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds. Relying on the legal maxims actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one) and ex debito justitiae, the Court emphasized that a litigant should not suffer due to procedural delays or administrative oversights attributable to the court. The Supreme Court set aside the FST’s order, ruling that the Tribunal was obligated to decide the matter on its merits rather than resorting to a technical knock-out, and remanded the case for a fresh decision after hearing both parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal on limitation grounds when the delay was caused by the administrative transfer of the case from the High Court?
  • Does the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit prevent a court from penalizing a litigant for procedural delays caused by the court's own actions?
  • Is a Service Tribunal required to decide a remitted case on merits rather than dismissing it in limine on technical grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs Province of Punjab through District Collector Bahawalpur2023 LHC 2037 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs Khalid Hussain and others2023 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 11 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs Additional Sessions Judge, Ex-Officio Justice Of Peace, Sargodha and 5 others2023 PLD Lahore 86 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-11Read full judgment →
• Abid Amin and 2 others vs National Accountability Bureau and others2023 PLD Supreme Court 252 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-17
  NAB OrdinanceState Bank of Pakistanrestructured loanrescheduled loandefaulted loanquashment of referenceSection 31-Deconomic justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from petitions for leave to appeal challenging a judgment of the Sindh High Court regarding a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference against company directors and bank officers following a debt restructuring/rescheduling agreement. The core legal question was whether NAB could initiate an inquiry, investigation, or prosecution involving a defaulted, restructured, or rescheduled loan without obtaining prior permission or a reference from the Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan under Sections 31-C and 31-D of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. The Supreme Court allowed the directors' appeals and dismissed NAB's petitions, holding that Section 31-D provides broad protection against NAB proceedings regarding defaulted or rescheduled loans absent a reference from the Governor of the SBP. The Court established that 'restructuring' includes 'rescheduling' and that unilateral NAB interference in SBP-approved loan arrangements undermines central bank authority, economic stability, and the legislative objective of safeguarding fiscal governance. Consequently, all proceedings and the reference against the petitioners were quashed for lack of lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Is a reference or permission from the Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan required under Section 31-D of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 before NAB can initiate proceedings regarding a defaulted or rescheduled loan?
  • Does the term restructuring include rescheduling for the purposes of Sections 31-C and 31-D of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Are proceedings and a reference initiated by NAB in violation of Section 31-D of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 subject to quashment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Ali son of Badaruddin vs The State2023 SHC 1090 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-21
  fair trialright to fair trialremandcriminal appealrebuttal of argumentsprocedural fairnessdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as rendered by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the trial court's procedure—specifically, hearing the State's arguments after a significant delay without allowing the defense an opportunity to rebut those arguments—violated the principles of a fair trial. The High Court held that the trial court's failure to provide the defense an opportunity to rebut the State's arguments after a two-month delay was procedurally flawed and prejudicial. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision after providing all parties a fair opportunity to be heard. The key principle laid down is that the right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, necessitates that all parties be given a meaningful opportunity to present and rebut arguments, and that judicial proceedings must not be conducted in a manner that undermines this right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to provide the defense an opportunity to rebut the prosecution's arguments after a significant delay in judgment violate the right to a fair trial?
  • Is a trial court required to allow parties to rebut arguments presented by the State after a long adjournment?
  • Can a conviction be set aside and remanded for fresh disposal if the trial court fails to adhere to procedural fairness in hearing arguments?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Ali and another, Muhammad Nazir, Muhammad Nazir, The State vs The State and another, Abid Ali2023 LHC 6634, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 745, 2024 PCRLJ 1252 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-18
  murderfirearm injurymitigating circumstancecommutation of death sentencechance witnessinjured witnessabscondenceinconsequential recoveryappeal against acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Lahore High Court disposes of a criminal appeal against conviction, a murder reference, an appeal against acquittal, a criminal revision for sentence enhancement, and another criminal appeal. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of chance and injured witnesses, the weight of inconsequential weapon recovery, and the grounds for mitigating a death sentence to life imprisonment. The court held that the ocular account, corroborated by medical evidence, an injured witness, and a known motive, was truthful and reliable, and that an accused's acquittal of co-accused due to generalized roles does not impair the prosecution's case against the principal offender. However, finding that the weapon recovery was inconsequential due to a failure to obtain a firearm comparison report and that the main appellant had fired a single shot, the court held these to be mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the court dismissed the acquittal appeal and sentence enhancement revision, while partially accepting the convict's appeal to the extent of commuting the death sentence of Abid Ali to imprisonment for life, and maintaining the convictions and sentences of Muhammad Asif.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses who are related to the deceased can be relied upon when corroborated by medical evidence and an injured witness?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused persons due to generalized roles or inconclusive weapon recovery adversely affect the prosecution's case against the principal offender?
  • Whether the failure of the investigating agency to obtain a firearm comparison report for a recovered weapon, combined with a single firearm shot, constitutes a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Does an unexplained long-term abscondence of an accused provide valid corroboration to the ocular account?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Abbasi vs Province of Sindh & Others2023 SHC 393 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-08Read full judgment →
• Abdus Salam vs Assistant Commissioner, Murree & 5 others2023 LHC 1019, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-23
  constitutional petitionintra court appealcivil servantpensionjurisdictionterms and conditions of serviceservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges an order of the learned Judge-in-Chambers which dismissed the appellant's constitutional petition on the ground of maintainability due to the constitutional bar under Article 212. The appellant, a retired civil servant, assailed an order withdrawing his pension. The core legal question is whether a retired civil servant can maintain a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution regarding pension matters, or if such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212. The Lahore High Court held that pension forms an integral part of the terms and conditions of service, and the definition of 'civil servant' under the relevant tribunal and civil servant acts encompasses persons who have been members of the civil service or held civil posts, including retired individuals. Therefore, the High Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain proceedings concerning the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, which exclusively fall within the domain of the Administrative Court or Tribunal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retired civil servant can maintain a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution regarding pension matters in view of the bar under Article 212?
  • Does the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution extend to matters of pension and retirement benefits of retired civil servants?
  • Whether pension forms part of the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman and 3 others vs Manzoor Ahmed and 6 others2023 LHC 2786 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-17Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs The State2023 PCRLJ 387 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-22
  criminal appealmurderinjured witnesscredibility of testimonyinsanity pleamedical evidenceappreciation of evidenceQisas and Diyat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife and causing injuries to his mother. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of the testimony provided by the injured mother and other close relatives, and whether the appellant’s plea of mental instability due to depression could exonerate him. The Balochistan High Court upheld the conviction, holding that the prosecution successfully established the charge through direct, circumstantial, and medical evidence. The court emphasized that the testimony of an injured witness is highly credible and, when consistent, sufficient for conviction. Regarding the defense of mental instability, the court held that in the absence of medical evidence, a mere bald plea of loss of senses or depression is insufficient to exonerate an accused from criminal liability. The court affirmed that the presence of the accused at the scene, the recovery of the weapon from his possession, and the consistent testimony of eye-witnesses, including the injured mother, proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the solitary statement of an injured witness be sufficient to sustain a conviction?
  • Does a bald plea of depression or loss of senses without medical evidence constitute a valid defense to a murder charge?
  • Is the testimony of close relatives inherently unreliable in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Soomro vs UBL & Ors2023 SHC 32 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-18
  dismissal for non-prosecutionright of cross-examinationNIRCgrievance petitionlabor disputerestoration of petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) dismissing the petitioner's grievance petition for non-prosecution after his right to cross-examine the respondent bank's witness was closed. The core legal question revolves around whether a tribunal can dismiss a grievance petition for default in appearance when evidence has already been led and a side closed, rather than deciding the matter on its merits based on the available record. The Sindh High Court held that although the conduct of the petitioner showed a lack of diligence, once a party's side is closed, the court should ideally decide the lis on its merits. Consequently, the petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter back to the NIRC to afford the petitioner a final opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and conclude the trial, subject to payment of costs. The key principle laid down is that procedural rules and dismissals for non-prosecution should not be used to trap litigants, and matters at advanced stages should preferably be adjudicated on their merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a grievance petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution when a party's side for cross-examination has already been closed?
  • Is a court required to decide a matter on its merits based on available record rather than dismissing it for default at an advanced stage?
  • Whether the right to cross-examine can be lightly curtailed without providing a fair and reasonable opportunity?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Malik vs Province of The Punjab and others2023 CLC 1193 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-31Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan vs The State and others2023 YLR 2046 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-07
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaythird proviso to section 497trial delayconduct of accusedcross-examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused facing trial for murder and attempted murder. The petitioner sought bail on merits and on the ground of statutory delay, having been incarcerated for over two years without the conclusion of the trial. The Court examined the record and found that the petitioner was named in the FIR, with recovery of the weapon and medical evidence supporting the prosecution's case, thus denying bail on merits. Regarding the statutory delay, the Court analyzed the trial record and observed that the delay was primarily attributable to the accused, who repeatedly sought adjournments, failed to cross-examine prosecution witnesses despite opportunities, and engaged in conduct designed to harass witnesses. The Court held that the statutory right to bail under the third proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is subject to the exception where delay is occasioned by the accused's own acts or omissions. Finding that the petitioner's conduct demonstrated a concerted effort to delay the trial, the Court dismissed the petition and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay if the delay in the trial is occasioned by the accused's own acts or omissions?
  • Does the mere mathematical counting of adjournments sought by an accused suffice to establish a delay attributable to the accused for the purpose of denying bail?
  • Can a court deny bail on statutory grounds if the accused has failed to cross-examine prosecution witnesses despite the passage of two years?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah and another vs Noor-ud-Din and others2023 CLC 1784, 2024 PLJ Quetta 121 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wasi vs The State2023 YLR 126 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-13
  juvenile offenderpost-arrest bailnarcotics recoverycriminal antecedentschild developmenttentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a juvenile, sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 4.800 KGs of heroin and 4.600 KGs of charas. The contraband was recovered from a 'baitak' near the petitioner's house, not from his personal possession. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, being a juvenile at the time of the alleged offense, was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery and his age. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that he was 13 years old at the time of the occurrence, had no prior criminal record, and the recovery was not from his direct possession. The Court emphasized that incarceration is detrimental to a juvenile's development and poses a risk of exposing the child to hardened criminals. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed, with the Court directing the petitioner's elder brothers to supervise him to prevent his involvement in future criminal activities, while clarifying that these observations were tentative and should not influence the trial court's final decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is a juvenile entitled to bail when the alleged narcotics recovery was not from his personal possession?
  • Does the incarceration of a juvenile in a narcotics case warrant the grant of bail to prevent exposure to criminal elements?
  • Can the age of an accused as determined by official documents like Form-B be a determining factor for bail in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs The State2023 SCP 178, PLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 343, PLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 265, 2023 SCMR · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murderocular evidenceprompt FIRlife imprisonmentprivate security guardSection 340(2) CrPCmitigating circumstancesmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the appellant's conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder but commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment. The incident arose from an altercation over a Rs. 10 wagon fare, during which the appellant, a private security guard, fatally shot the deceased with a pump-action gun. The core legal questions involved the reliability of natural ocular evidence from related witnesses, the effect of an unproven motive, and whether carrying an official security weapon off-duty entitled the appellant to mitigation for an act at the spur of the moment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that prompt FIR lodging and trustworthy ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence were sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court emphasized that under the Punjab Private Security Companies (Regulation and Control) Rules 2003, security guards cannot carry official weapons off-duty, ruling out further sentence mitigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is trustworthy ocular evidence from related witnesses sufficient to sustain a murder conviction under Section 302(b) PPC?
  • Does the non-appearance of an accused as their own witness under Section 340(2) CrPC affect a defense plea raised under Section 342 CrPC?
  • Can a private security guard who illegally carries an official weapon off-duty claim mitigation of sentence for an act committed at the spur of the moment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid Uqaily vs Fop through Secretary Establishment Division, and others2023 IHC 376 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs The State2023 PCRLJ 611 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-08
  criminal appealmurder convictionocular evidenceinterested witnessesminor contradictionsforensic evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the defense's arguments regarding the reliability of related eye-witnesses and the presence of minor contradictions in their testimonies. Upon reassessment, the Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent ocular evidence, which was corroborated by medical reports, forensic evidence, and the recovery of the crime weapon. The Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased does not automatically discredit their testimony, especially when they are natural witnesses residing in the same house. Furthermore, the Court established that minor discrepancies and contradictions in witness statements, which are common in human recollection, do not warrant the rejection of evidence that is otherwise trustworthy and confidence-inspiring. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased render their testimony unreliable?
  • Are minor contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses sufficient to discard their evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence corroborated by forensic and medical reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Qasmi and 3 others vs Abdul Waheed Qasmi and 3 others2023 PLD High Court (AJK) 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-01-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor deceased through his Legal Heirs etc vs Rana Abid2023 LHC 2978, 2024 PLJ Lahore 146, 2025 YLR 229 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The State and another2023 LHC 5667 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-16
  pre-arrest bailQatl-bis-sababcriminal omissionduty of carenon-bailable offencejudicial discretionPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the operator of a private hostel following a roof collapse that resulted in fatalities and injuries. The core legal question was whether an accused charged with Qatl-bis-sabab under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is entitled to pre-arrest bail as a matter of right, given that the offence is non-bailable despite being punishable only by Diyat. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the accused failed to establish grounds for the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. The ratio decidendi establishes that Qatl-bis-sabab is a non-bailable offence, and bail is a discretionary relief rather than an automatic right. The Court affirmed that while the offence may not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, judicial discretion must be exercised based on the facts, nature of allegations, and evidence. Furthermore, the Court clarified that criminal liability for omissions exists where a legal duty to act is breached, as demonstrated by the petitioner's failure to maintain the building.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused charged with Qatl-bis-sabab under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 entitled to pre-arrest bail as a matter of right?
  • Does the fact that an offence is punishable only by Diyat automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can criminal liability for Qatl-bis-sabab be established through an omission to act?
  • What are the criteria for granting pre-arrest bail in cases involving non-bailable offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Secretary Labour Sindh & Ors2023 SHC 369 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-26
  collective bargaining agentreferendumcivil servantworkmantrade unionirrigation departmentvoter list
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions and the Labour Court dismissing objections regarding the inclusion of Daroghas and Telephone Operators in the voter list for a Collective Bargaining Agent referendum in the Hala Irrigation Division. The core legal question was whether Darogha and Telephone Operators of the Irrigation Department, Government of Sindh, are civil servants under the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 or workmen under the Sindh Industrial Relations Act 2013, thereby determining their eligibility to participate in trade union activities and referendums. The Sindh High Court held that permanent employees of the Irrigation Department whose terms and conditions are regulated by the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 are civil servants and do not fall within the definition of worker or workman under the Sindh Industrial Relations Act 2013 or the Factories Act 1934, rendering them ineligible to vote in such referendums. The court established that permanent departmental staff governed by civil servant laws cannot participate as workmen in industrial relations referendums, declaring the impugned referendum proceedings void ab initio and setting aside the orders of the lower forums.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Daroghas and Telephone Operators of the Irrigation Department Government of Sindh are civil servants or workmen?
  • Does the Sindh Industrial Relations Act 2013 apply to persons employed in the administration of the State who are not workmen?
  • Are permanent employees whose terms and conditions are settled under the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 entitled to form or join trade unions as workers under the Sindh Industrial Relations Act 2013?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Additional District Judge and others2023 LHC 5642 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Lashari vs Ishaque Brohi & others2023 SHC 1076, 2025 PCRLJ 280 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-31
  appeal against acquittalbenefit of doubtdouble presumption of innocencemurderwithholding of witnessreappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was preferred under Section 417(2A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the judgment of the trial court resulting in the acquittal of the respondents for murder. The core legal question was whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal suffered from perversity, misreading, or non-reading of evidence warranting interference by the appellate court. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting numerous evidentiary gaps including inconsistencies in witness statements regarding bloodstains, failure to recover weapons, delay in chemical analysis, and the withholding of a central witness. The court reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal reinforces the double presumption of innocence, and an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's findings are perverse, arbitrary, or result in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal?
  • Does the non-examination of a central witness by the prosecution give rise to an adverse inference under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • When is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt in a criminal trial?
  • Does the double presumption of innocence apply following a judgment of acquittal by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Jatoi vs Chief Minister Sindh through Principal Secretary, Chief2023 PSC 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil servicepromotionperson-specific postseniority-cum-fitnessservice appealjurisdiction of service tribunallimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a Service Tribunal judgment setting aside the BPS-20 promotion of the appellant in the Health Department, Government of Sindh. The core legal questions involved whether the Service Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under Section 4(b) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973; whether the departmental appeal was time-barred; and whether creating a person-specific post and amending rules for an individual civil servant to the exclusion of eligible seniors violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdictional bar under Section 4(b) applies only when a departmental authority determines the 'fitness' of civil servants considered for promotion; it does not bar appeals where eligible candidates were ignored altogether. The Court further held that the departmental appeal was not time-barred. On the merits, the Court laid down that creating person-specific posts, amending rules tailored for a single individual, and promoting a junior civil servant without considering other eligible seniors violates Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar under Section 4(b) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973 apply where the departmental authority fails to consider eligible senior civil servants for promotion altogether?
  • Is the creation of a person-specific post and tailored rule amendment for a single civil servant's promotion constitutional under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can a competent authority promote a junior civil servant without considering the comparative merit of eligible seniors in the same cadre?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Bangulani vs The State2023 YLR 1530 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-19
  murdercapital punishmentreduction of sentencerelated witnessesprompt FIRon-the-spot arrestfirearm recoverybenefit of the doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal arises from a judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to death, alongside compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution case alleged that the appellant, motivated by an old family matrimonial dispute, shot the deceased with a T.T. pistol, resulting in his eventual death. The appellant was apprehended on the spot by the complainant and witnesses due to his physical disability preventing escape. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related eye-witnesses, the promptness of the FIR, and the corroborative value of medical and recovery evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through reliable and confidence-inspiring eye-witness testimony, prompt FIR lodging, and corroborative medical and forensic evidence. The court laid down the principle that the evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded absent proof of prior enmity or ill-will, and while upholding the conviction, the court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment considering the circumstances of the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses can form the sole basis for conviction in a murder trial without independent corroboration?
  • Does the prompt lodging of an First Information Report within minutes of the incident effectively rule out the possibility of concoction and false substitution of an accused?
  • Whether the appellate court can commute a sentence of death to life imprisonment when the murder was not executed in an exceptionally brutal or heinous manner?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an accused's bare denial under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the face of consistent and reliable ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and 2 others vs The Judicial Commission Of Pakistan and others2023 PLD Supreme Court 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-08-17
  Additional JudgesJudicial Commission of Pakistannon-confirmationoriginal jurisdictionFundamental Rightslegitimate expectationindependence of judiciaryParliamentary Committee on Judges
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of two constitutional petitions and a civil review petition filed by former Additional Judges of the Lahore High Court aggrieved by their non-confirmation or non-extension as permanent judges. The core legal questions examined the maintainability of petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution challenging non-confirmation, the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation under the post-18th Amendment framework of Article 175A, and whether reasons must be disclosed for denying extension or confirmation. The Supreme Court held that Additional Judges do not possess a constitutional tenure or security of tenure comparable to Permanent Judges, and non-confirmation does not infringe any Fundamental Rights to attract the original jurisdiction of the Court under Article 184(3). The Court further held that under the current constitutional mechanism established by the 18th Amendment, a legitimate expectation for confirmation only arises after endorsement by the majority of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, and that confidentiality of the Commission's proceedings serves institutional interests and prevents stigmatization. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Additional Judge of a High Court has a Fundamental Right to be confirmed as a Permanent Judge?
  • Can the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution be invoked against the non-confirmation of Additional Judges?
  • Does the doctrine of legitimate expectation apply to the confirmation of Additional Judges in the absence of a recommendation by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan?
  • Is there a legal obligation to disclose reasons for the non-recommendation or non-confirmation of Additional Judges by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad Sultan Ashrafi vs The State2023 SHC 532 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad Brohi vs The State2023 YLR 2227 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-09
  criminal appealunlicensed weaponbenefit of the doubtcontradictory evidencesafe custody of case propertyballistic expert reportpolice witnessesappellate acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 23(i)A of the Sindh Arms Act and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with a fine. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved the recovery of the unlicensed weapon and cartridges beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the ballistic report and testimonies of police officials were reliable. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge due to major contradictions, lack of independent corroboration, failure to prove safe custody and transmission of the case property to the forensic laboratory, and non-confrontation of the forensic report to the accused during his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, and that convictions must be based on unimpeachable evidence rather than weak or inconsistent police testimonies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to prove the safe custody and transmission of recovered weapons to the forensic laboratory renders the recovery doubtful?
  • Can a ballistic expert report be used against an accused if it was not confronted to him during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case entitle the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of police officials regarding arrest and recovery is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Sindh Arms Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam vs The State2023 MLD 1709 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-05-31
  post-arrest bailabsconsioncommon intentionocular accountcriminal conspiracytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application seeks post-arrest bail on behalf of the accused in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that the applicants entered the complainant's house and opened fire, resulting in one death and multiple injuries, with the motive being an unapproved court marriage. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to post-arrest bail despite being nominated with promptitude, having a clear motive, and remaining fugitive from law for nearly five years. The Balochistan High Court held that the accused had active participation with a common intention, were linked by supporting medical and ocular evidence, and that their prolonged absconsion disentitled them to bail. The court established the principle that a fugitive from law and noticeable absconder is generally not entitled to the concession of bail, and dismissed the application accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does prolonged absconsion disentitle an accused person to the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether active participation with a common intention in a crime precludes the grant of bail at the tentative assessment stage?
  • Does corroboration of ocular testimony by medical evidence create reasonable grounds to believe an accused's involvement in a capital charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Saboor vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 PTD 1434 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The State, etc2023 LHC 6469, 2024 MLD 1147, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 679, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 827 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-13
  post-arrest bailheinous offencejuvenile justiceidentification parademurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 126/2023, registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning a murder incident. The petitioner, who was not initially nominated in the F.I.R., was arrested following an identification parade and the recovery of a weapon (hunter). The core legal question was whether the petitioner, despite being a juvenile, was entitled to bail for a heinous offence. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, as there were reasonable grounds to connect him with the commission of the offence. The Court observed that the petitioner was over sixteen years of age at the time of the occurrence. Applying Section 6(4) of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018, the Court affirmed that a juvenile over sixteen years of age accused of a heinous offence may be denied bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe in their involvement. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed, with the Court noting that its observations were tentative and would not prejudice the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a juvenile over sixteen years of age be denied bail for a heinous offence?
  • Does the identification of an accused in an identification parade constitute reasonable grounds to connect them with an offence for bail purposes?
  • What constitutes a heinous offence under the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The State etc2023 SCP 248, 2023 SCMR 2081 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-08-11
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquirycivil disputedelay in FIRcriminal intimidation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 447, 427, 511, 109, 148, 149, 435, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail in light of a delayed FIR, pending civil litigation regarding property ownership, general allegations, and the applicability of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The Court laid down that liberty is a precious constitutional right not to be curtailed on bald and vague allegations, that pre-arrest bail is justified when civil disputes underlie criminal charges creating room for further inquiry, and that the merits of a case can be examined while granting pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when a criminal case arises from an underlying civil dispute over land ownership and possession?
  • Does a significant unexplained delay in lodging the first information report justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can liberty guaranteed under the Constitution be taken away merely on bald and vague allegations?
  • Whether the merits of a case can be touched upon by the court while considering an application for pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Noman Abid and another2023 CLC 1098 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Additional District Judge and 2 Others2023 LHC 3663, 2024 MLD 413, 2023 PLJ Lahore 880 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Khan s/o Suleman Khan caste Tizyal r/o Chachari, Tehsil2023 SC AJK 36 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-05-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and others vs Secretary, Ministry of Communication and others2023 PLC (C.S) 949 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-18
  deputationistsservice lawspecial allowancevested rightparity of payterms and conditions of servicepublic exchequer
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an Islamabad High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioners' claim for special allowances equivalent to those granted to regular employees of the National Highways and Motorways Police. The petitioners, who served as deputationists, argued they were entitled to the same special allowance of one month's pay as regular staff, citing a 1997 Prime Minister's approval. The core legal question was whether deputationists possess a vested right to claim the same financial benefits and allowances as regular employees, despite distinct terms and conditions of service. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners, as deputationists, were governed by specific terms and conditions distinct from regular employees and were already receiving separate benefits, such as deputation allowances and promotions. The Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal, ruling that no legal right existed for the petitioners to claim the special allowance reserved for regular staff. The judgment establishes that deputationists cannot claim parity with regular employees regarding allowances when their service terms are distinct and they already receive separate compensatory benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can deputationists claim the same special allowances as regular employees when their terms and conditions of service are distinct?
  • Does a Prime Minister's approval for allowances to regular employees automatically extend to deputationists?
  • Is a deputationist entitled to parity of pay and benefits with regular employees in the absence of a specific legal provision?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and others vs Abdul Rehman and others Respondent_ Secretary, Ministry of Communication etc_2023 PLJ SC 58 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  deputationistsservice lawspecial allowancevested rightterms and conditions of serviceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an Islamabad High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioners' claim for special allowances equivalent to those received by regular employees of the National Highways and Motorways Police (NH&MP). The petitioners, who served as deputationists, argued they were entitled to the same special allowances as regular staff, citing a 1997 Prime Minister's approval. The core legal question was whether deputationists possess a vested legal right to claim the same financial benefits and allowances as regular employees of the NH&MP. The Supreme Court held that deputationists and regular employees constitute distinct categories with separate terms and conditions of service. The Court found that the petitioners were already receiving specific deputation benefits and failed to establish any legal right to the additional allowances claimed. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's dismissal, affirming that no infringement of a vested right occurred and that the petitioners' claim lacked merit, as the special allowances were exclusively intended for regular employees.

  Questions settled

  • Are deputationists entitled to the same special allowances as regular employees of the National Highways and Motorways Police?
  • Does a deputationist have a vested legal right to claim financial benefits not explicitly included in their terms and conditions of service?
  • Can a court interfere with the denial of special allowances when the petitioners are already receiving separate deputation benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 655 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-21
  rapezina-bil-jabrforensic evidencevictim testimonyinvestigative lapsescriminal appealcorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether a conviction for rape can be sustained based on the victim's testimony when forensic DNA and serology reports are negative or inconclusive. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions. The Court held that the victim's testimony, corroborated by police witnesses who apprehended the appellants at the scene, provided sufficient evidence for conviction. The key principle laid down is that negative forensic reports do not automatically negate the prosecution's case, as factors like improper sample handling can affect results. The integrity of the prosecution's case cannot be pinned solely on forensic findings when other overwhelming evidence exists. Furthermore, investigative lapses, such as failures in sample preservation or semen grouping, are the responsibility of the state and do not entitle the accused to acquittal if the victim's testimony is credible and consistent. The solitary statement of a rape victim, if found truthful, is sufficient for conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for rape be sustained when forensic DNA and serology reports are negative?
  • Do investigative lapses in the handling of forensic samples entitle an accused to an acquittal?
  • Is the solitary testimony of a rape victim sufficient for conviction if found credible?
  • Does the failure to perform semen grouping in a rape case materially affect the prosecution's evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and 3 others vs Messrs Progressive Minerals through Najeeba and others2023 PLD Balochistan 78 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Amjad vs University of Health Sciences etc2023 LHC 2529 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman alias Muhammad Zeeshan vs The State and others2023 SCMR 884 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-02
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquirydelay in FIRrule of consistencyliberty of a personcriminal assault
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 337-A(ii)/337-L(2)/147/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of causing injury, an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and the grant of bail to co-accused. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, confirming the pre-arrest bail. The Court held that the unexplained delay in FIR registration, the rule of consistency vis-a-vis co-accused, and the absence of criminal history brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key legal principles laid down are that an individual's liberty is a precious right not to be curtailed on bald allegations, that merits can be examined during pre-arrest bail consideration, and that a case for further inquiry arises when mala fides, delay, and broader implication by the complainant are prima facie apparent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR creates a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted on the rule of consistency when co-accused with similar roles have already been granted bail?
  • Whether the merits of a case can be touched upon by the Court while considering a petition for pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the curtailment of personal liberty require stronger grounds than bald allegations of a crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman @ Muhammad Zeeshan vs The State and others2023 SCP 48 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-02
  pre-arrest baildelay in FIRrule of consistencyfurther inquiryliberty of personover-implicationSection 497(2) CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 assails the decision of the Lahore High Court denying pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a criminal case registered under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail where the FIR was lodged after an unexplained five-day delay, co-accused with similar roles had been granted pre-arrest bail, and the petitioner's identity/name was subsequently altered. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail. The Court held that an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR indicates prior consultation and deliberation, giving rise to the possibility of over-implication by throwing a wider net. It laid down that the liberty of a person is a precious right that cannot be curtailed merely on bald allegations, that merits of a case can be tentatively touched upon when deciding pre-arrest bail, and that the case fell within Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as requiring further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained inordinate delay of five days in registering an FIR warrants the grant of pre-arrest bail on grounds of deliberate consultation?
  • Can the merits of a criminal case be tentatively touched upon by the court while deciding an application for pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the grant of pre-arrest bail to co-accused with similar roles entitle a petitioner to pre-arrest bail under the rule of consistency?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq and another vs Mohammad Sagheer and 2 others2023 CLC 262 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-04-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaq and others vs Hoor Jan and others2023 CLC 977, 2023 PLC (C.S.) 776 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-10-29
  succession certificatetarkapensionary benefitsinheritanceservice ruleslegal heirsestate of deceased
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated appeals challenging orders passed by the District Judge, Mastung, regarding the grant of a Succession Certificate for the estate of a deceased government employee. The core legal question was whether the pension and pensionary benefits of a deceased employee constitute 'tarka' (heritable estate) distributable among all legal heirs under Sharia law, or if they are a statutory grant payable exclusively to the next-of-kin as prescribed by the relevant service rules. The Court upheld the trial court's decision, dismissing the appeals of the distant relatives. Relying on precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Court held that pensionary benefits accruing after death do not form part of the deceased's 'tarka' because the deceased had no dominion or control over them during their lifetime. Consequently, such benefits are treated as a grant or concession governed by specific service statutes rather than general inheritance law, and are payable only to the beneficiaries designated by those statutes, excluding distant legal heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Do pension and pensionary benefits of a deceased government employee constitute 'tarka' (heritable estate) under Islamic law?
  • Are pensionary benefits accruing after death distributable among all legal heirs according to Sharia law?
  • Does a deceased employee have the legal authority to claim or dispose of post-death pensionary benefits during their lifetime?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs Govt. of Punjab, etc2023 LHC 2697 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs Government of Punjab and others2023 YLR 2525 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs The State and another2023 SCP 246, 2023 SCMR 1948, PLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-08-24
  pre-arrest baildishonour of chequeSection 489-F PPCprohibitory clauseSection 497 Cr.P.C.absconsionrecovery of moneydelay in lodging FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution assailed the Lahore High Court's order declining pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 489-F PPC at Police Station Shadbagh, Lahore. The allegation was that the petitioner issued two dishonoured cheques following a transaction for iron. The petitioner asserted that the cheques were given as surety in a joint business rather than for repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation, pointing to a civil suit for rendition of accounts and an unexplained three-year delay by the complainant in lodging the FIR. The Supreme Court observed that Section 489-F PPC is not intended for the recovery of money and that whether the cheques fell within the section's scope required evidence at trial. Holding that the offence carries a maximum punishment of three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., where bail is the rule, and noting that absconsion alone cannot defeat relief, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and confirmed the petitioner's pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 489-F PPC can be utilized as a tool for the recovery of an alleged monetary debt?
  • Whether absconsion alone is a sufficient ground to deny pre-arrest bail when a prima facie case is made out?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule in offences carrying a maximum punishment of three years that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Province of the Punjab etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 293 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Province of The Punjab and others2023 CLC 1846 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Muhammad Buxal and 4 others2023 PLD Sindh 133 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-30
  bail cancellationperverse orderdirectory directionsheinous offencecriminal transfer applicationnon-compliance of court ordersstatutory delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous and transfer application arises from a murder case where the trial court granted post-arrest bail to the accused respondents based on the prosecution's failure to examine the Medico Legal Officer within the timeframe stipulated in a previous order of the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether non-compliance with directory timelines or directions given while disposing of a bail application automatically entitles an accused to bail, and under what circumstances a perverse bail-granting order may be recalled. The Sindh High Court held that timelines set during the disposal of a bail application are directory rather than mandatory, and failure to comply with them does not furnish a legal ground for granting bail, particularly in heinous offences carrying a capital punishment. The court ruled that an unjustified or perverse bail order passed in disregard of settled principles and material evidence is liable to be recalled, and further directed the transfer of the sessions case to another court of competent jurisdiction to ensure a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-compliance with a timeline or direction given by a superior court while disposing of a bail application automatically entitles an accused person to bail?
  • Can a trial court grant post-arrest bail solely on the ground that material witnesses or the Medico Legal Officer were not examined within the stipulated time?
  • Under what circumstances can a bail-granting order be recalled on the ground of perversity rather than misuse of concession?
  • Does mere delay in the conclusion of a trial by itself constitute a sufficient ground to release an accused charged with a capital offence on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed Mahar vs The State2023 SHC 938 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-13
  narcoticscharas recoverycontrol of narcotic substancespolice witnessessafe custody of sampleschemical examiner reportcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for possessing a large quantity of charas. The core legal questions involve the credibility of police witnesses, the absence of independent public witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the validity of the same police officer acting as complainant and investigating officer, and the establishment of safe chain of custody for the recovered narcotics. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through reliable and confidence-inspiring oral and documentary evidence, supported by a positive chemical examiner's report. The court affirmed that police officials are competent witnesses, that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excludes Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that minor procedural omissions do not vitiate a trial where guilt is otherwise established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a police officer can act as both the complainant and the investigating officer in a criminal case?
  • Does the non-association of private independent witnesses vitiate a recovery under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in view of Section 25 thereof?
  • Whether the testimony of police officials alone can form the basis of a conviction if found reliable and unshattered during cross-examination?
  • What constitutes sufficient proof of safe chain of custody and transmission of narcotic samples to the chemical examiner?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim etc. vs Mst. Sitara Shaheen2023 PLJ Peshawar 59 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qudoos vs Commandant Frontier Constabulary, Khyber2023 PLC (C.S.) 629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-04
  Frontier Constabularycivil servantsFederal Service Tribunalremand of casejurisdictionact of court prejudices no oneex debito justitiae
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing an application for the resurrection of a service appeal filed by an employee of the Frontier Constabulary. The core legal question concerned whether employees of the Frontier Constabulary are civil servants entitled to approach the Federal Service Tribunal, and whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to adjudicate the matter remitted to it by the High Court. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that Frontier Constabulary employees are civil servants and that when a High Court remits a writ petition to the Tribunal to be treated as a service appeal in light of binding precedents, the Tribunal is bound to decide the matter on merits rather than dismissing it on technical grounds of limitation or lack of a separate restoration application. The key principle laid down is that courts and tribunals must rectify procedural errors under the maxims actus curiae neminem gravabit and ex debito justitiae to ensure that no party suffers due to court oversight or technicalities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of the Frontier Constabulary have the status of civil servants and can approach the Federal Service Tribunal for their service disputes?
  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal can refuse to entertain a matter remitted to it by the High Court pursuant to a binding judgment of the Supreme Court?
  • Whether a party should suffer prejudice due to a procedural omission or mistake on the part of a court or tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs Shamim Akhtar and others2023 YLR 697 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayoom and another vs Sindh Environment Protection Agency2023 CLD 946 · Sindh Environmental Protection Tribunal · 2023-04-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadoos and others vs P.H.A. and others2023 CLC 487 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →