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.

• Abdul Qadir, Arab & others vs P.O Sindh & Ors2023 SHC 242 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1260 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-16
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirytainted moneybriberyrecovery memocriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 161 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, following the dismissal of his bail plea by the trial court. The prosecution alleged the applicant accepted a bribe to facilitate a government job appointment. The Court observed that the applicant, an Arabic teacher, lacked the authority to influence hiring in the Education Department, rendering the allegations questionable. Furthermore, the Court noted significant discrepancies in the prosecution's case: the arrest and recovery memo failed to record the serial numbers of the tainted money; the raiding magistrate and witnesses did not overhear the alleged bribe conversation; and a key prosecution witness denied the complainant's claim regarding the demand for a bribe. Consequently, the Court held that the case required further inquiry and granted the applicant post-arrest bail, emphasizing that these observations were tentative and would not prejudice the trial. The Court also clarified that the trial court retains the authority to cancel bail if the applicant absconds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to record the serial numbers of tainted money in a recovery memo entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Can bail be granted when a key prosecution witness denies the complainant's version of events recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a trial court competent to cancel bail without reference to the High Court if the accused absconds from trial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs The Additional Collector Customs (Adjudication) and others2023 IHC 436 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Health Department2023 CLC 1086 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Khoso & Others vs Province of Sindh & Others2023 SHC 337 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Jagirani vs The State2023 SHC 878, 2024 YLR 1922 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-23
  post-arrest bailnon-bailable offencesQatl-i-Amdjudicial discretionappellate reviewtentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Qadir Jagirani, who is charged with offences under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an armed attack resulting in a fatality. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail given the material available on record. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that the court of first instance had assigned cogent reasons for refusing bail, including the applicant's specific role in the offence, supporting medical evidence, and the recovery of the crime weapon. The Court affirmed that while it exercises concurrent jurisdiction, it must not ignore the reasoning of the lower court when reviewing bail orders. The key principle laid down is that while discretion regarding bail should be exercised in favour of the accused, it must not be exercised so liberally as to render the provisions of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 redundant, particularly when the lower court has already provided a reasoned order.

  Questions settled

  • Should an appellate court ignore the reasoning of a lower court when reviewing a bail refusal order?
  • Does the exercise of judicial discretion in granting bail extend to rendering the provisions of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 redundant?
  • Is a court required to consider the specific role of an accused and supporting medical evidence when determining a post-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir alias Sohbat Khan and others vs Wazir Hasan and others2023 MLD 1688 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Abbasi, etc vs Muhammad Rafique, etc2023 IHC 398 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeem Shah vs Abdul Wadood and another2023 PCRLJ 143 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-29
  criminal acquittal appealcircumstantial evidencelast seen evidencemedical evidencepresumption of innocenceburden of proofcorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court which acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, medical evidence, and an FSL report. The complainant had nominated the accused in a subsequent application filed days after the FIR, without explaining the source of information. The High Court examined the evidence and held that the subsequent application could not be equated with the FIR. It further ruled that medical evidence, while confirming the cause of death, does not identify the offender or connect the accused to the crime. Additionally, the court found the last-seen evidence to be a weak form of proof, insufficient for a capital charge without strong corroboration. Emphasizing that an acquittal order carries a double presumption of innocence, the Court held that the trial court's judgment was well-reasoned and not perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that conviction cannot rest on suspicion or probability but must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a subsequent application filed during an investigation be treated as part of the FIR?
  • Does medical evidence regarding the cause of death serve as substantive evidence to identify an accused?
  • Is last-seen evidence sufficient to sustain a capital conviction without strong corroboration?
  • What is the standard of proof required to dislodge a presumption of innocence in an appeal against acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nasir vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1811 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-06-14
  post-arrest bailconfessional statementretracting affidavittentative assessmentmurderanti-terrorismevaluation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with Section 21-D of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given his alleged confession, the statement of an eye-witness, and a subsequent affidavit by the witness retracting his statement. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the material is required, and an affidavit filed by a prosecution witness resiling from a previous statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot outweigh the police record without a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is reserved for trial. The court laid down the principle that the evidentiary value of an affidavit retracting a statement must be evaluated during the trial and cannot be used to discard the prosecution's case at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can the evidentiary value of an affidavit resiling from a previous statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered for granting bail?
  • Is a confessional statement recorded under Section 21-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 sufficient for connecting an accused to the crime during tentative assessment at the bail stage?
  • Does the retraction of a witness statement through an affidavit warrant the deeper appreciation of evidence by a bail-granting court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nasir and others vs The State and another2023 YLR 107 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-07
  murdercapital punishmentmitigating circumstancesunproved motiverelated witnessinjured witnesscommon intentionmedical corroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder, attempted hurt, and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution case alleged that the appellants, along with an absconding co-accused, entered the complainant's house and fired upon his parents, causing their deaths, and injured the complainant. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related and injured eyewitnesses, the effect of delay in lodging the FIR, the consequences of unproved motive on the quantum of sentence, and the evidentiary value of unverified weapon recoveries. The High Court held that the ocular testimony of the injured and related eyewitnesses was natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence, establishing the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. However, because the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive and the recovery of the weapon was inconclusive, the court found mitigating circumstances to commute the death sentence of the principal accused to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the rest of the convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and injured eyewitnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an alleged motive constitute a mitigating circumstance for altering a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a crime weapon recovery when it is not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison with crime empties?
  • Can a circumstance or piece of evidence not put to an accused during examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. be considered against them?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nasir and 2 others vs Bibi Hajira and others2023 CLC 1391 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-05-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nafey vs Muhammad Rafique and others2023 SCP 272, 2023 SCMR 2096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-08-09
  Local Bodies ElectionsElection disqualificationCNICAge qualificationNomination papersStatutory interpretationElection Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the High Court of Balochistan's decision upholding the disqualification of the petitioner from contesting Local Bodies Elections. The core legal question was whether a candidate’s age for election qualification is determined by the Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) or school records, and whether a post-election correction of the CNIC can cure a disqualification existing at the time of filing nomination papers. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was disqualified because, on the last date for filing nomination papers, his CNIC indicated he was under the statutory age of twenty-one years. The Court affirmed that under the Balochistan Local Government (Election) Rules 2013, the CNIC is the definitive document for establishing credentials, and school records are irrelevant for this purpose. Furthermore, the Court established that a candidate must possess the requisite qualifications on the date of filing nomination papers; subsequent corrections to the CNIC cannot retrospectively validate a candidacy that was disqualified at the time of filing. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the age of a candidate for local government elections determined by the Computerized National Identity Card or by school records?
  • Must a candidate possess the required statutory qualifications on the date of filing nomination papers?
  • Can a post-election correction of a Computerized National Identity Card cure a disqualification that existed at the time of filing nomination papers?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nabi and others vs The State through Deputy Prosecutor General2023 PCRLJ 31 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-31
  National Accountability Ordinancemisuse of authorityillegal transfer of landcorruption and corrupt practicesrevenue officialshandwriting expertcriminal ehtesab appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of two criminal ehtesab appeals arising from a judgment of the Accountability Court convicting the appellants for offences under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. The core legal question involved whether the appellants, including a public association president and revenue officials, misused their authority by illegally selling and transferring government land allotted for a housing scheme to an unauthorized private individual. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through documentary evidence, official records, and handwriting expert reports establishing that the appellants acted in connivance to misappropriate the property and misuse their official authority. The court affirmed that public functionaries and association representatives cannot exceed their limited legal mandates or dispose of state-allotted welfare land, laying down the principle that the misuse of authority to grant undue benefits constitutes corruption under the National Accountability Ordinance, and that revenue and association officials must strictly adhere to statutory powers and act in good faith.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unauthorized sale of government land allotted for an association's housing scheme constitutes corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Can a public representative or association president dispose of property entrusted for member welfare without legal authority?
  • Whether revenue officials who facilitate the illegal mutation of state land can be convicted for misuse of authority?
  • Does an attempt to misuse authority to gain a benefit for another person fall within the scope of corrupt practices?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Moeen son of Hazrat Yousaf, resident of Kago Cham Barikot P/S2023 F.S.C 7, 2024 YLR 1090 · Federal Shariat Court · 2023-12-07
  transposed statementsabsconding accusedrecord of evidence in absence of accusedattempted murderinjuriesmedical evidenceappellate decisioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II/Judge MCTC, Dir Upper, convicting the appellant under Sections 324, 450, 334, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following a trial after 21 years of abscondence. The core legal questions involved the legality of relying on transposed statements of prosecution witnesses recorded in the absence of the absconding accused, and whether such evidence is admissible under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, holding that statements recorded in the trial of co-accused can be validly transposed and relied upon in a subsequent trial of an arrested absconder under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, provided the statutory preconditions regarding the opportunity to cross-examine are met. The court laid down that the sole testimony of an injured victim, when trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to maintain a conviction, and that transposed statements preserved under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute substantive evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can statements of prosecution witnesses recorded in the trial of co-accused be transposed and used as evidence against an absconding accused upon his subsequent arrest under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the mandatory ingredients under Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, for the admissibility of a transposed statement in a subsequent trial?
  • Is the sole testimony of an injured victim, when consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, sufficient to maintain a conviction in a criminal trial?
  • Do procedural irregularities in preparing a medico-legal certificate vitiate the trial or render the medical report inadmissible as evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Matten vs Syed Asim Nisar2023 SHC 998, 2025 PLD Sindh 108 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Mateen vs Govt. of Pujab through Secretary etc2023 LHC 2559 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan vs The State2023 PCRLJ 73 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-11
  post-arrest bailsexual abuseprohibitory clauseheinous offencetentative assessmentmedical evidencesexual harassment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application concerns the request for post-arrest bail by the applicant, Abdul Manan, who is charged with offences under sections 354, 509, 506/2, 337-A(i), and 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations, specifically the applicability of section 377-B, which carries a severe penalty and falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, finding sufficient grounds to believe he was connected to the commission of a heinous offence. The Court emphasized that the FIR was registered promptly, the victim's medical examination corroborated the allegations of sexual abuse and physical assault, and the offence of sexual abuse under section 377-B, as defined in section 377-A, falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The Court affirmed that bail pleas must be decided on tentative assessments of available material without deeper appreciation of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of sexual abuse under Section 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an offence not initially mentioned in the FIR be considered for bail purposes if added in the challan-sheet?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible when deciding a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan and others vs Bakhti Ali and others2023 PHC 225, 2023 CLC 1839 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan alias Nisar vs Meer Muhammad alias Meer and 3 oth2023 YLR 863 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-08
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtpresumption of innocencedelayed FIRidentification evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court acquitting respondents of charges under sections 459, 457, and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's appreciation of evidence and extension of the benefit of the doubt to the accused was perverse or based on a possible view. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and appellate interference is warranted only if the trial court's view is perverse, arbitrary, or on the fringes of impossibility. The court noted significant delays in lodging the FIR, weak identification evidence, and glaring medical contradictions regarding the time of injuries. The key principle laid down is that an acquittal will not be interfered with merely because an appellate court might reach a different conclusion upon reappraisal, provided the view taken by the trial court is a reasonably possible one supported by the evidence on record.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Whether identification of accused persons under bulb light without corroborative mashirnama proof constitutes weak evidence?
  • Does a delay of one month in lodging the FIR, without plausible explanation, create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case?
  • Whether contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the time of injuries are fatal to the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary (Revenue) and 52023 YLR 414 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik alias Badshah Khan vs Additional District Judge and 5 others2023 PLD Lahore 225 · Lahore High Court · 2022-08-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs The State2023 PCRLJ 331 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-12
  Control of Narcotic Substances Actchain of custodysafe transmissionchemical examiner reportmalkhana registerbenefit of doubtnarcotics appealopium recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenged the judgment of the Special Judge (CNS), Dadu, convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to six years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine following the alleged recovery of 4,000 grams of opium. The primary legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the unbroken chain of custody and safe transmission of the narcotics sample, and whether a delay exceeding 72 hours in dispatching the sample to the chemical examiner without explanation was fatal to the conviction. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. The Court held that the failure to examine the police official who physically delivered the sample to the laboratory broke the chain of custody, rendering the chemical analyst's report unreliable. Furthermore, the unexplained nine-day delay violated Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, and the failure to examine the malkhana in-charge created reasonable doubt, the benefit of which must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine the official who delivered narcotic samples to the laboratory break the chain of custody and vitiate the chemical examiner's report?
  • Is an unexplained delay beyond 72 hours in sending narcotic samples to the chemical examiner in violation of Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 fatal to the prosecution case?
  • Does the non-production of malkhana entries and failure to examine the malkhana in-charge undermine the safe custody of recovered contraband?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed S/o Ahmed and others vs The State2023 SHC 1088 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-28
  narcoticscriminal appealbenefit of doubtsafe custodychain of custodyadverse presumptionControl of Narcotic Substances Actcircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, for the possession of a large quantity of heroin. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody for the narcotics, proved the recovery from the accused, and substantiated its case despite failing to examine the material eye-witnesses from the Pakistan Maritime Security Agency. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It noted that the failure to examine the actual arresting officers, the lack of evidence regarding safe custody and transmission of the narcotics to the chemical examiner, and the unexplained delay in sending samples for analysis created significant gaps in the prosecution's evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt through unimpeachable evidence, and that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine material eye-witnesses of an arrest and recovery create an adverse presumption against the prosecution case?
  • Is the prosecution required to establish the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotics samples to the chemical examiner to secure a conviction?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples to the chemical examiner entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the specific role of the accused in the transportation of the contraband?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Mirza vs Muslim Commercial Bank2023 PLC 226 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2023-06-14
  restoration of appealnon-prosecutioncondonation of delaynatural justiceindustrial relationsdismissal of appealservice of notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns miscellaneous applications filed by the appellant seeking the restoration of an appeal previously dismissed for non-prosecution by the National Industrial Relations Commission, alongside an application for condonation of delay. The core legal question was whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant had no notice of the hearing date, particularly where previous adjournments were improperly granted by the Reader rather than the Bench. The Commission held that the dismissal was improper because the Commission failed to ensure the appellant was served with notice. The Commission emphasized the principle that no act of court shall prejudice any party and that courts are obligated to rectify wrongs caused by their own administrative failures. Furthermore, it was held that court staff, such as Readers, lack the authority to grant adjournments, which is a judicial function. Consequently, the Commission allowed the applications, condoned the delay, and restored the appeal to its original number, affirming that the administration of justice favors adjudication on merits over dismissal based on technicalities.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution if the appellant was not served with notice of the hearing date?
  • Does a court Reader have the authority to grant adjournments in judicial proceedings?
  • Is an affidavit from a counsel regarding the reasons for non-appearance sufficient to establish sufficient cause for restoration?
  • Should a court prioritize adjudication on merits over dismissal based on technicalities?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed etc vs Member (Colonies) etc2023 LHC 2523 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Qureshi and others vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2023 IHC 140 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalique vs The State2023 PCRLJ 323 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilityinstigationlalkaramurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed before the Sindh High Court by the applicant Abdul Khalique seeking post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302, 114, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned whether an accused assigned only the role of instigation (lalkara) and being empty-handed, attracting vicarious liability, is entitled to post-arrest bail when no active injury is attributed to him. The court held that where an accused is attributed the role of instigation and mere presence while empty-handed, his case falls within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, warranting the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that an accused assigned the role of lalkara without causing any physical injury to the deceased, bringing his liability under scrutiny during trial, makes out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused attributed only the role of instigation and mere presence while empty-handed is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the attribution of vicarious liability through lalkara bring the case of an accused within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when no active role or physical injury is attributed to the accused in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs The State2023 MLD 702 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-14
  common intentionvicarious liabilityocular testimonyspur of the momentcriminal appealhurtmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased and assault on injured witnesses. The core legal question was whether the appellant, who participated in a group attack but did not fire the fatal shot, shared a common intention to commit murder, thereby attracting vicarious liability under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a pre-concerted common intention or object to commit murder, noting the incident occurred at the spur of the moment. While the ocular and medical evidence confirmed the appellant assaulted the injured with an axe, the Court found no evidence of intent to kill. Consequently, the conviction for murder was set aside. The Court established that in the absence of proof of shared common intention for the fatal act, an accused is only liable for the specific injuries they personally inflicted, leading to the appellant's conviction under provisions relating to causing hurt rather than murder.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-recovery of a weapon of offence automatically render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Can an accused be held vicariously liable for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the prosecution fails to prove a shared common intention?
  • Does an axe blow resulting in a lacerated wound contradict a witness statement claiming the axe was used, or can it be explained by the use of the blunt side of the weapon?
  • Is an accused liable for murder if the incident occurred at the spur of the moment without prior planning?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq Qureshi and another vs Azad Jammu And Kashmir Board of Trustees (Non-Gazetted) Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance through Chairman_Additional Chief Secretary (General) Muzaffarabad and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1315 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-02-10
  benevolent fundgroup insurancedependent family memberslegacysuccession certificateconstitutional petitionminor daughter
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a dispute regarding the distribution of benevolent fund and group insurance benefits following the death of a government employee. The core legal question was whether parents of a deceased employee who are not wholly dependent upon him qualify as members of his 'family' under the relevant statute to claim such benefits, and whether these benefits form part of the deceased's legacy dividable among all legal heirs according to a succession certificate. The High Court held that benevolent fund and group insurance grants do not form part of the deceased employee's legacy or estate and are not dividable among all legal heirs; instead, they are payable exclusively to family members who were wholly dependent upon the deceased. Since the petitioners (parents) were not dependent on the deceased employee, they did not fall within the statutory definition of 'family', leaving the minor daughter as the sole entitled recipient. The constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether benevolent fund and group insurance benefits form part of the legacy of a deceased employee to be distributed among all legal heirs?
  • Do parents who are not wholly dependent upon a deceased employee qualify as members of his family for the grant of benevolent fund and group insurance?
  • Does a succession certificate affect the distribution of benevolent fund and group insurance grants?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq Achakzai vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 266 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq (Deceased) through LRs vs Fazal ur Rehman and others2023 PSC 115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-30
  customary lawlimited estatetermination of limited estatelast full ownerQuranic sharersTable of ResiduariesSunni law of inheritanceMuslim Personal Law Shariat Application Act
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeals arising out of inheritance litigation regarding property held by a female under customary law. The property was originally owned by one Naaju, whose son Abdul Ghafoor inherited it to the exclusion of his sister Mst. Roshnae. Upon Abdul Ghafoor's issueless death in 1921, Mst. Roshnae held the property as a limited owner under customary law until gifting it in 1964. Collaterals subsequently sued for their Islamic law shares. The core legal questions involved the effect of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 and its 1964 Amendment Act on limited estates, as well as the order of succession under Sunni law regarding whether a full sister excludes remoter collaterals. The Supreme Court held that by virtue of the 1964 Amendment omitting section 7(2) of the 1962 Act, the 1962 Act applied retrospectively to terminate limited estates even where the last full owner died before 1962. Consequently, Mst. Roshnae inherited a 1/2 share as a Quranic sharer and the remaining 1/2 share as a superior residuary under Serial No. 6 of the Table of Residuaries, excluding remoter collaterals under Serial No. 13. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and upheld the gift.

  Questions settled

  • Does the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 apply to terminate limited estates where the last full owner died prior to the commencement of the Act?
  • Who qualifies as the 'last full owner' for the purpose of devolution of property upon the termination of a life estate under section 5 of the 1962 Act?
  • Does a full sister exclude descendants of a true grandfather in the Sunni Table of Residuaries?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalid s/o Abdul Ghani vs HBL Limited and Eleven Others, Aizaz Alam2023 SHC 1192, 2024 CLD 338 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Mst. Ruqqia Begum (deceased) through L.Rs. and others2023 LHC 2050, 2025 CLC 140 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Momnani s/o Abdul Aziz Momnani and Mst. Sultana Abdul2023 SHC 1158, 2024 CLD 640 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kareem etc. vs Muhammad Basil and another2023 PLJ Quetta 82 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kareem and another vs Muhammad Basil and another2023 PLD Balochistan 22 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-07-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs The State2023 YLR 1264 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-17
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsCNS Actprohibitory clausecharas recoverytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Abdul Jabbar before the Sindh High Court, seeking bail in a case registered under Section 6/9-C of the CNS Act, 1997, following the recovery of 2470 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the huge quantity of recovered narcotics and the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that a considerable quantity of lethal contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the applicant, supported by a positive chemical report, and that the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the bar contained in Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The key principle laid down is that recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotics corroborated by a positive chemical examiner's report prima facie connects the accused to the crime, attracting the statutory bar against bail, and questions of false implication or non-association of private mashirs cannot be delved into at the bail stage without tentative assessment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused found in possession of a large quantity of charas is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the non-association of private mashirs at the time of recovery make the prosecution case doubtful for the purpose of bail?
  • Whether the prohibition contained in Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 applies to offenses falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs Government of Balochistan, Forest and Wildlife2023 CLC 1808, 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1399 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-21
  public office appointmentland donation for employmentvoid contractpublic policyspecific performanceconstitutional petitionmerit-based appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking a declaration that the Forest and Wildlife Department, Government of Balochistan, was bound to prioritize candidates from the Panezai Tribe for advertised public posts in District Ziarat. The petitioner relied on an agreement dated 27.04.2000, under which the tribe allegedly donated land free of cost in exchange for employment preferences in the department. The High Court of Balochistan reviewed the terms of the agreement and statutory provisions. The court held that public offices cannot be sold or assigned in exchange for land, and any agreement stipulating such terms is illegal, void ab initio, and contrary to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act 1872. Furthermore, such continuous obligations extending beyond three years cannot be specifically enforced pursuant to Section 21(g) of the Specific Relief Act 1877. Reaffirming that public appointments must be made strictly on merit, the court dismissed the petition in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Is an agreement to offer public employment in exchange for land donation valid under public policy?
  • Can a contract obligating a public department to provide continuous employment preferences over generations be specifically enforced?
  • Does an agreement stipulating the sale or reservation of public office create enforceable legal rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar S/O Muhammad Ilyas vs The State2023 SHC 538 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Khan Bangash vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2023 PLD Islamabad 209, 2023 PLJ Islamabad 256 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Khan Bangash vs Federation of Pakistan and another.2023 IHC 174 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar and 3 others vs The State and another2023 YLR 250 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-01
  criminal revisioncheatingforgerypartial compromiseburden of proofacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed against the concurrent judgments of the trial and appellate courts, which convicted the petitioners under Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for cheating. While the parties attempted to settle the matter through a compromise, the Court noted that the compromise was partial, as not all aggrieved persons had consented, and thus proceeded to decide the case on merits. The core legal question was whether the conviction under Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, could be sustained when the related charges of forgery under Sections 468 and 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, were not proved and the essential ingredients of cheating were absent. The Court held that the prosecution failed to produce evidence of receipt of money or valuable security, nor did it prove that the documents involved were forged or fake. Consequently, the Court found the prosecution's case lacked the necessary elements to constitute the offence of cheating. The Court set aside the impugned judgments, acquitted the petitioners, and discharged their sureties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the receipt of any property or valuable security?
  • Does a partial compromise between the accused and only one of several complainants warrant an acquittal in a criminal case?
  • Is it legally permissible to uphold a conviction for cheating when the underlying charges of forgery under Sections 468 and 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, have been rejected by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hussain (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others vs Afsar Jan2023 CLC 1789 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haye vs The State2023 PLD Balochistan 70 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-11
  child sexual assaultrapesolitary testimony of victimchild witnessmedical evidenceprompt FIRcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Sections 376 and 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for child sexual assault and kidnapping, resulting in sentences of imprisonment for life and five years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The core legal questions involved the credibility and sufficiency of a minor child victim's solitary testimony and its corroboration by medical evidence in sexual offense cases. The Balochistan High Court held that the statement of a minor child witness, when found mentally competent and consistent under cross-examination, is sufficient to base a conviction without requiring multiple eyewitnesses, particularly when corroborated by prompt lodging of the FIR and supporting medical and forensic evidence. The court established that in heinous offenses like rape and child assault, families do not risk their honor by falsely implicating innocent persons, and sole testimony of a victim inspiring confidence is legally adequate to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for rape and sexual assault can be based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a minor victim?
  • How is the mental competence and capacity of a minor child witness assessed prior to recording testimony?
  • Does prompt lodging of an FIR effectively rule out fabrication and consultation in sexual assault cases?
  • Whether medical and forensic evidence corroborating ocular testimony is sufficient to maintain a conviction under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hassan and another vs Muhammad Abbas2023 MLD 346 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2022-06-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haseeb Khan vs Ravi Urban Development Authority and others2023 PLC (C.S) 804 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-14
  master and servanttermination of contractstatutory delegationChief Executive Officernon-statutory ruleswrit petitioncontractual employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the termination of the petitioner's service as Executive Director (Legal) by the Chief Executive Officer of the Ravi Urban Development Authority. The core legal questions involve whether the Chief Executive Officer had the statutory authority under the Ravi Urban Development Authority Act, 2020 to terminate the contract of employment, and whether the principle of master and servant applies to the non-statutory Human Resource Regulations and Procedure Manual of the Authority. The Lahore High Court held that section 9(6) of the Act expressly delegates the powers and functions of the Authority and its Board to the Chief Executive Officer, empowering him to make appointments and terminate services. Furthermore, since the Authority's HR Manual is non-statutory and the employment contract governs the terms of termination simpliciter without statutory underpinning, the relationship is strictly governed by the master and servant principle. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as non-maintainable for reinstatement, establishing that statutory delegation to a Chief Executive Officer permits independent exercise of administrative powers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chief Executive Officer of a statutory authority possesses the inherent power to terminate employee contracts under a statutory delegation of powers?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to employment contracts regulated by non-statutory regulations of a statutory corporation?
  • Can an employee appointed on a contract basis invoke constitutional jurisdiction for reinstatement upon termination simpliciter?
  • Whether section 12 of the Ravi Urban Development Authority Act, 2020 excludes the operation of termination clauses contained in employment contracts governed by non-statutory manuals?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq Khan and another vs Bank of Punjab and another2023 CLD 290 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The State and another2023 YLR 479 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-17
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationmurdercriminal conspiracydiscovery of factQanun-e-Shahadatprohibitory clauseperverse order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition arose from an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad-West, granting post-arrest bail to the respondent accused of murder under sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court exercised its discretion appropriately in granting bail despite the existence of substantial incriminating material, including the accused's disclosure leading to the recovery of the crime weapon and other evidence. The Islamabad High Court held that the trial court's order was perverse and lacked proper reasoning, as it ignored significant evidence linking the accused to the crime. The Court recalled the bail, emphasizing that bail-granting orders must be based on sound judicial considerations and that orders ignoring material evidence or failing to provide rational reasons constitute a miscarriage of justice. The Court further affirmed that statements made to the police, while generally inadmissible, become admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when they lead to the discovery of new facts, thereby establishing a prima facie case against the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a bail-granting order be cancelled by a superior court?
  • Does a confession made to the police become admissible if it leads to the discovery of a new fact under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is a bail order that ignores material evidence on record considered perverse and subject to cancellation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Asghar (through L.Rs.) and others vs Vth Additional District2023 CLC 344 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and others vs Additional District Judge and others2023 MLD 290 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez vs Federation of Pakistan through Chairman NADRA and another2023 CLC 776 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Chairman and 2 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 186 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-21
  proforma promotionservice regulationsback benefitscommercial organizationlachesconstitutional jurisdictionintra court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge in Chambers dismissing the appellant's writ petition against the rejection of his request for proforma promotion as Manager (Marketing) in the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan. The core legal questions involve whether reinstatement with back benefits ipso facto entitles an employee to proforma promotion, whether the service regulations provide a statutory right to promotion, and whether the petition was barred by laches. The Lahore High Court held that reinstatement with back benefits does not automatically include proforma promotion, particularly in a commercial organization where promotion depends on specific eligibility-cum-fitness criteria and performance standards, and that the regulations lack any statutory provision regarding promotion. Furthermore, the court held that the petition was hit by inordinate delay. The key principles laid down are that commercial organizations like the State Life Insurance Corporation are best suited to judge employee performance for promotions based on business targets, and that the constitutional jurisdiction of the court cannot be invoked in the absence of explicit statutory rules governing promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Does reinstatement into service with back benefits automatically entitle an employee to proforma promotion?
  • Whether the State Life Insurance Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973 contain statutory provisions regarding promotion.
  • Can the High Court substitute its own findings for the promotion criteria devised by a commercial organization like the State Life Insurance Corporation?
  • Is a writ petition challenging a departmental order after a delay of over two years barred by laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Khair Bibi and 3 others2023 YLR 180 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Shah vs Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad2023 YLR 1669 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar, etc vs The State, etc2023 LHC 3190 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-10
  murderbenefit of doubtchance witnessocular evidencedelayed FIRpost-mortem delaycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants for the murder of their brother and sister-in-law. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on ocular testimony, medical evidence, and alleged recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with significant doubts. The court found the alleged eye-witnesses to be chance, related, and interested witnesses whose presence at the scene was not established, and whose conduct was unnatural. Furthermore, the court noted substantial, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and conducting post-mortem examinations, which cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's narrative. The court also rejected the evidence of weapon recoveries due to the significant time lapse and lack of credibility, and found the alleged motive unproven. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, holding that the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not concession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution witnesses are found to be chance, related, and interested witnesses?
  • Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR and conducting a post-mortem examination cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Is the recovery of weapons of offence reliable when effected after a substantial delay of twenty-seven days?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive for a crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The State2023 YLR 1200 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-30
  confiscation of vehiclenarcotics transportmotor vehicle registrationownership of vehiclesuperdaricontrol of narcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, challenging the judgment of the trial court solely to the extent of the confiscation of a vehicle used in the transportation of narcotics. The core legal questions involved were whether the appellant qualified as the lawful owner of the vehicle to claim its release, and whether the vehicle was rightly confiscated under Section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Balochistan High Court held that under Section 2(24) of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965, an owner is defined as the person in whose name the vehicle is registered, and since the vehicle was not registered in the appellant's name, he could not claim ownership. The court consequently dismissed the appeal, upholding the confiscation of the vehicle. The key principles laid down are that ownership of a motor vehicle for statutory relief is strictly determined by registration in the claimant's name, and vehicles used in the transportation of illicit narcotics are liable to confiscation under Section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, unless the registered owner establishes lack of knowledge.

  Questions settled

  • Who qualifies as the owner of a motor vehicle for the purpose of claiming its release under the West Pakistan Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965?
  • Under what circumstances is a vehicle used in transporting narcotics liable to confiscation pursuant to Section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can a person claim the release of a seized vehicle based on a private sale deed without formal registration of the vehicle in their name?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Province Of Sindh And Others2023 SHC 914 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Faizi Bibi and 2 others2023 YLR 54 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar and others vs The State2023 PCRLJ 769 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-06-28
  murdercapital punishmentbenefit of the doubtchance witnessescall data recordunnatural death in housearmed weapon recoverycriminal appealmurder referenceacquittal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Abdul Ghaffar, under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and mother-in-law, sentencing him to death, while acquitting the co-accused. The complainant also filed an acquittal appeal against the co-accused. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related and chance eye-witnesses, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the evidentiary value of weapon recoveries sent belatedly to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and whether a conviction can be sustained solely because a crime occurred inside the accused person's house under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the eye-witnesses, that call data records contradicted their claims, that recoveries were doubtful, and that unnatural death inside a house does not shift the ultimate burden of proof onto the accused without independent primary evidence. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appellant's appeal, set aside his conviction and death sentence, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the complainant's acquittal appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted for murder solely on the presumption that the crime took place inside his house when prosecution evidence is otherwise unreliable?
  • Does the failure of prosecution eye-witnesses to explain their presence at the crime scene render their testimony untrustworthy?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a forensic ballistic report when crime empties and the weapon are sent to the laboratory with an unexplained delay?
  • Whether the testimony of related and chance witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration and natural explanation of presence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Fatah Mari vs The State2023 SHC 1138 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-08
  post-arrest bailinquest reportFIR authenticityforensic evidencemurdertransfer of casetrial delay
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case involving double murder, alleging murderous enmity. The applicant was specifically nominated in the FIR with the role of firing upon one of the deceased, and forensic evidence indicated that a rifle recovered from the applicant matched an empty casing found at the crime scene. The defense argued that the inquest report listed the accused as unknown, that there were contradictions between medical and oral evidence, and that the FIR was delayed. The Court held that the inquest report is not a substitute for the FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and does not serve as a basis to challenge the FIR's authenticity, as inquest reports are prepared by police and need not reflect the complainant's verbatim statement. Finding reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was involved in the crime, the Court dismissed the bail application on merits. However, due to the suspension of the presiding officer, the Court transferred the trial to another jurisdiction with a directive to conclude evidence recording within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Can an inquest report be used as a substitute for an FIR to challenge its authenticity?
  • Is it a legal requirement for an inquest report to contain a verbatim reflection of the complainant's statement?
  • Does the suspension of a presiding officer warrant the transfer of a criminal case to another court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Basit vs State Life Insurance2023 CLD 583 · Insurance Appellate Tribunal Punjab · 2023-01-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Basit Khan vs Bank Islami Pakistan Limited & others2023 SHC 1124, 2024 CLD 631 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Basit and others vs The State2023 YLR 1066 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-12
  common intentionvicarious liabilitymurder referenceocular evidencerobberydeath sentenceforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the criminal appeals and a murder reference arising from the conviction of appellants Abdul Basit and Altaf Raja for the murder of Mst. Malik Naz and injuries caused to a minor during a robbery. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the appellants' guilt, specifically regarding the vicarious liability of the appellant Altaf Raja under the principle of common intention, despite him not being the primary shooter. The Balochistan High Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the prosecution's ocular evidence was consistent, reliable, and corroborated by forensic reports, including the recovery of the murder weapon. The court upheld the conviction and death sentence of Abdul Basit and the life imprisonment of Altaf Raja. The key principle laid down is that under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, common intention does not require direct proof of prior agreement but can be inferred from the attendant circumstances of the crime, rendering all participants vicariously liable for acts committed in furtherance of that shared criminal purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Can common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be inferred from the circumstances of the crime without direct evidence of a prior agreement?
  • Is an accused vicariously liable for a murder committed by a co-accused during the course of a robbery if they shared a common intention?
  • Does the recovery of a crime weapon supported by positive forensic analysis corroborate ocular testimony in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz, etc. vs State, etc.2023 PLJ Cr.C. 200 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-08
  common intentionvicarious liabilityspur of the momentsimilar intentionmurder referencedeath sentence mitigationocular and medical conflictindividual criminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from convictions and sentences handed down by the trial court under sections 302, 324, 337-F(v), 337-A(iv) read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a murder reference for confirmation of death sentences. The core legal questions involved the appraisal of ocular and medical evidence, the existence of a pre-arranged plan, and the proper application of vicarious liability through common intention versus individual liability under section 38 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 during a sudden occurrence. The Lahore High Court held that in the absence of proof of pre-concert or a pre-arranged plan, the principle of common intention cannot be invoked to visit the appellants with vicarious liability, and each accused must be held responsible solely for his individual acts based on similar intention. Consequently, the court partly allowed the appeals, set aside the death sentences and convictions based on common intention, altered the remaining death sentences to imprisonment for life, and modified the sentences to reflect individual culpability while extending the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key legal principle laid down is that common intention requires a pre-arranged plan or prior concert, and where an occurrence takes place on the spur of the moment without premeditation, vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is excluded, rendering each participant liable only for their distinct individual acts under section 38.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sudden occurrence arising at the spur of the moment attract the principle of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can imprisonment for life be awarded as a legal sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of aggravating circumstances?
  • When several persons are engaged in a criminal act without a pre-arranged plan, does Section 38 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 render each person guilty only of their individual acts?
  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the crime scene with a co-accused establish a common intention to commit murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Abdul Kareem and 9 others2023 YLR 104 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Ansari and others vs The State2023 YLR 1012 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-21
  Anti-terrorismidentification paradereasonable doubtsole eye-witnesscriminal appealhuliabenefit of doubtpolice encounter
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions of the appellants for murder and terrorism-related offenses. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the reliability of the sole eye-witness identification and the integrity of the identification parade. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court found the sole eye-witness unreliable, noting the absence of a prior description (hulia) of the culprits in the FIR or initial statements, and identified significant procedural flaws in the identification parade. Additionally, the Court observed that the alleged recovery of weapons and the purported police encounter were suspicious, and the prosecution withheld critical evidence. The Court reaffirmed the principle that identification of unknown suspects by a sole witness without prior description is inherently risky and requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, emphasizing that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not concession.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a sole eye-witness to provide a description of the accused in the FIR or initial statement render subsequent identification proceedings unreliable?
  • Is a confession made to police officers while in custody admissible in evidence?
  • Can an accused be convicted based on the evidence of a sole eye-witness if there are significant procedural lapses in the identification process?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the basis of a different footing affect the prosecution's case regarding the motive against remaining appellants?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz and 2 others vs The State2023 YLR 2120 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-08
  common intentionvicarious liabilityspur of the momentmurder referenceindividual criminal liabilitysentencingsudden fight
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions and sentences for murder and attempted murder, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of death sentences. The core legal question was whether the principle of common intention (Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860) applied to the appellants' actions, or if they were liable only for their individual acts under Section 38, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a pre-arranged plan or common intention, as the incident occurred on the spur of the moment without evidence of prior concert. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions based on vicarious liability, holding each appellant responsible only for their specific individual acts. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of evidence of a pre-arranged plan or common intention, the doctrine of vicarious liability cannot be invoked; instead, each participant in a sudden, unpremeditated criminal act is liable only for their own individual role and actions, and sentencing must be determined accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of multiple accused at a crime scene automatically invoke vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can common intention be inferred in a sudden, unpremeditated occurrence where no pre-arranged plan is established?
  • When multiple persons are engaged in a criminal act without a common intention, how is criminal liability determined for each individual?
  • Is imprisonment for life a legal sentence for a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz alias Sadam vs The State2023 YLR 1821 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-04-17
  anti-terrorismexplosive substancesprosecution sanctionmandatory sanctioncriminal appealacquittalevidentiary contradictions
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellant under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, following allegations of possessing explosive materials and involvement in terrorist activities. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of explosives and the mandatory requirement of government sanction for trial under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The High Court found the prosecution's case riddled with material contradictions, particularly regarding the handling of evidence and the failure to produce key witnesses from the Bomb Disposal team. Furthermore, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any nexus between the appellant and a proscribed organization. Crucially, the Court determined that the trial court proceeded without the mandatory sanction required under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, rendering the proceedings void. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release, emphasizing that statutory requirements for prosecution sanction are mandatory conditions precedent for a valid trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is the prior sanction of the Provincial Government a mandatory condition precedent for a trial under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
  • Does the failure to obtain mandatory prosecution sanction render the entire trial proceedings void?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce key witnesses responsible for the destruction and analysis of recovered explosive evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdu Hameed through his legal heirs vs Bank Islami Pakistan Limited and others2023 SHC 814 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-18Read full judgment →
• Abbas Khan vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 549, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 477 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-11-16
  statutory baildelay in conclusion of trialpost-arrest bailrobberyhabitual offenderprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a second post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Abbas Khan, facing trial under sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, seeking release on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of his trial. The core legal question centered on whether the accused was entitled to statutory bail under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when his detention exceeded one year and the delay was not attributable to him, notwithstanding his involvement in other criminal cases without any prior convictions. The Islamabad High Court accepted the petition and held that the statutory period of one year for the conclusion of a trial runs from the date of arrest rather than the framing of the charge, and since the delay was caused by the absence of prosecution witnesses rather than any act or omission of the accused, and he was not a previous convict, he was entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that the right to statutory bail ripens after one year from detention in non-capital offences unless exceptions regarding contributory delay or previous convictions apply.

  Questions settled

  • Does the one-year period for statutory bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 commence from the date of the accused's arrest or from the date the charge is framed?
  • Whether an accused can be denied statutory bail solely on the ground of being involved in other criminal cases when there is no previous conviction?
  • What are the exceptions that disentitle an accused from claiming statutory bail on the ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• aba Faruqui vs Ghazala Aziz through duly constituted Attorney and 32023 YLR 969 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-16Read full judgment →
• Aashiq Hussain vs Fida Hussain and others2023 PLJ Lahore 384 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-24Read full judgment →
• Aashiq Hussain vs Fida Hussain & others2023 [M] CLR 117 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-24Read full judgment →
• Aashiq Hussain vs Fida Hussain & others2023 LHC 100 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-24Read full judgment →
• Aamir Shahzad Khan vs Muhammad Sabir2023 IHC 354 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-09Read full judgment →
• A.M. Construction Company (Private) Limited vs Province of Punjab2023 CLC 616 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-30
  performance securityadditional performance securitylowest biddersuccessful bidderPunjab Procurement Rulestender documentsbid evaluationcontract award
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal, along with connected writ petitions, addressed the legal question of whether the demand for additional performance security under Para 26(A) of the General Directions for the guidance of tenderers violates Rule 56 of the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014. The appellants argued that additional performance security is of the same species as performance guarantee and should be capped at ten percent of the contract amount under Rule 56. The Lahore High Court held that Rule 56 applies exclusively to a successful bidder after the award of the contract, whereas Paras 26(A), 26(B), and 15 of the General Directions govern the lowest bidder at the pre-acceptance bidding stage. The court ruled that demanding additional performance security from the lowest bidder prior to contract award is not inconsistent with or violative of Rule 56, provided that once a bidder attains the status of a successful bidder, any performance or additional performance security demanded cannot exceed the ten percent limit of the contract price prescribed by Rule 56.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the demand for additional performance security under Para 26(A) of the General Directions is violative of Rule 56 of the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014?
  • Does Rule 56 of the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014 apply to the lowest bidder prior to the acceptance of a bid and award of a contract?
  • What is the distinction between a lowest bidder and a successful bidder under the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014?
  • Can a procuring agency forfeit earnest money and reject a bid if the lowest bidder fails to furnish the required performance security or additional performance security?
  Read full judgment →
• A. Rahim Foods (Pvt) Limited, Competition Commission of Pakistan vs K&N’s Foods (Pvt) Limited and others, . Rahim Foods (Pvt) Limited and another2023 SCP 161, 2024 PLJ SC 46, 2023 CLD 1001, 2023 PLD Supreme Court 516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-10
  deceptive marketing practicespassing offinjurious falsehoodcopycat packagingparasitic copyingunregistered trademarklocus standi of quasi-judicial bodyconfusing similarity
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeals under Section 44 of the Competition Act 2010 arising from a judgment of the Competition Appellate Tribunal regarding deceptive marketing practices. The dispute concerned whether Rahim Foods' use of copycat packaging and an unregistered trademark constituted 'fraudulent use' under Section 10(2)(d) and 'distribution of false or misleading information' under Section 10(2)(a) of the Act. The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the Tribunal's decision. The Court held that Section 10(2)(d) codifies the common law tort of passing-off, where 'fraudulent use' means intentional and dishonest use inferred from circumstances, covering confusingly similar packaging without requiring prior trademark registration. The test for deceptive similarity is that of an unwary ordinary purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect recollection based on leading characteristics as a whole. Section 10(2)(a) codifies injurious falsehood, requiring direct misrepresentation regarding the rival undertaking's goods rather than misrepresentation regarding one's own goods. Finally, the Competition Commission lacks locus standi to appeal modifications of its own quasi-judicial orders.

  Questions settled

  • Is registration of a trademark or packaging required to establish deceptive marketing practices under Section 10(2)(d) of the Competition Act 2010?
  • What legal standard and perspective are applied to determine whether product packaging or labelling is confusingly or deceptively similar under Section 10(2)(d) of the Competition Act 2010?
  • Does copycat packaging intended to pass off one's own goods as those of another constitute distribution of false or misleading information under Section 10(2)(a) of the Competition Act 2010?
  • Does the Competition Commission of Pakistan have the locus standi to appeal before the Supreme Court against an order of the Competition Appellate Tribunal modifying or setting aside its quasi-judicial decision?
  Read full judgment →
• A. M. Qureshi through legal representative vs Deputy Commissioner, District East, Karachi and others2023 PLD Sindh 127 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• (Re: Independent and Transparent Investigation into the Murder of Renowned Journalist, Mr. Arshad Sharif in Kenya) vs Not2023 SCP 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-13
  suo motucriminal investigationinternational cooperationdiplomatic channelsSpecial Joint Investigation TeamMutual Legal Assistancejournalist murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the suo motu proceedings regarding the murder of journalist Arshad Sharif in Kenya. The Supreme Court reviewed reports from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Special Joint Investigation Team (SJIT) concerning the progress of the investigation and challenges regarding international cooperation. The core legal questions addressed were the appropriate diplomatic channels for seeking foreign assistance in a criminal investigation and the scope of the SJIT's inquiry. The Court held that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must prioritize liaising with Kenyan authorities to resolve their reluctance to cooperate, utilizing established diplomatic channels under the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2011, before considering United Nations involvement. The Court further directed the SJIT to expand its probe to include the motivations behind the deceased's departure from Pakistan, the reasons for his expulsion from Dubai, and the unauthorized release of the fact-finding committee's report. The principle established is that domestic investigative bodies must exhaust formal diplomatic mechanisms for international cooperation before seeking external international intervention, while maintaining a comprehensive scope of inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Must formal diplomatic channels under the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2011 be exhausted before seeking United Nations assistance in a criminal investigation?
  • What specific areas of inquiry must a Special Joint Investigation Team cover when investigating the murder of a journalist abroad?
  Read full judgment →
• (i) Ansar, (ii) Maqsood Ahmed, (iii) Mumtaz Ahmed (In JP 405_2021) (iv) Nasir, and (v) Nisar Ahmed vs The State etc2023 SCP 108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  dacoity with murdervicarious liabilityocular accountidentification paradecriminal liabilitySection 396 PPCappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged the conviction of the petitioners for dacoity with murder under Sections 302, 324, and 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the scope of vicarious liability under Section 396 PPC, the impact of minor evidentiary discrepancies, and whether the acquittal of a co-accused necessitates the acquittal of others. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that Section 396 PPC establishes an independent, statutory liability for all members of a group of five or more committing dacoity if murder occurs during the commission, regardless of which individual fired the fatal shot. The Court affirmed that minor discrepancies in witness testimony do not invalidate the prosecution's case if the ocular account remains consistent and reliable. Furthermore, the Court clarified that identification parades are merely corroborative evidence and are not mandatory for conviction when other reliable evidence exists. The Court distinguished the petitioners' case from the acquitted co-accused, noting that the acquittal was based on specific, non-arbitrary findings regarding that individual's identification.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of one co-accused on the same set of evidence automatically entitle other co-accused to acquittal?
  • Is it necessary to identify the specific individual who fired the fatal shot to convict all members of a group for dacoity with murder under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the failure to conduct an identification parade render a conviction unsustainable if the ocular evidence is otherwise reliable?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to invoke Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• (Grant Of Additional 20 Marks To Hafiz-E-Quran While Admission In Mbbs/Bds Under Regulation 9 (9) Of The Mbbs And Bds (Admission House Job And Internship) Regulations, 2018). vs Not2023 SCP 99 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-04-04
  suo motu jurisdictionmaster of the rosterHafiz-e-Quran additional marksmedical college admissionsinterim orderjudicial proprietyfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This suo motu case was initiated to examine whether Regulation 9(9) of the MBBS and BDS (Admissions, Examinations, House Job and Internship) Regulations, 2018, which allowed the grant of twenty additional marks to candidates who had memorized the Holy Quran, violated Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan. During the proceedings, the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council informed the Court that the 2018 Regulations were no longer in force and that the current Medical and Dental Undergraduate Education (Admissions, Curriculum and Conduct) Regulations, 2021 did not grant any additional marks to Hafiz-e-Quran candidates, rendering the primary issue infructuous. Furthermore, the Court addressed an interim order passed by a two-member bench which had travelled beyond the scope of the lis to invoke suo motu jurisdiction regarding bench constitution and the powers of the Chief Justice as the master of the roster. The Supreme Court held that suo motu powers can solely be invoked by the Chief Justice of Pakistan, and recalled the interim order as being without jurisdiction and violative of binding precedent. The suo motu case was accordingly disposed of as infructuous.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the grant of additional marks to Hafiz-e-Quran candidates for admission to MBBS and BDS degrees violates Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can a bench of the Supreme Court independently invoke suo motu jurisdiction without the recommendation or order of the Chief Justice of Pakistan?
  • Whether the Chief Justice of Pakistan is exclusively the master of the roster for the constitution of benches?
  • What is the legal status of an interim order passed by a judicial bench that travels beyond the subject matter of the lis before it?
  Read full judgment →
• /s. Raja Zain Akbar Khan and another vs Secretary Public Works2022 PLJ AJ&K 65 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• : M/s. Samira Fabrics (Pvt.) Limited, Faisalabad vs The Cir, Rto, FaisalabadPTCL 2022 CL. 573 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-03-03Read full judgment →
• Zulqamain alias Karnali s/o Wall Khan, r/o Allah Yar Khel Nowshera Kalan2022 PHC 40 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-25Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqaruddin vs State etcPLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-11-19
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtretraction of testimonyacquittalnon-compoundable offencesaffidavitprosecution case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant for house trespass, abduction, murderous assault, and rape. Following a trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death and various terms of imprisonment. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the complainant and the victims submitted affidavits stating that the allegations were based on misunderstandings and that no such offences had occurred. The High Court accepted these affidavits, acquitted the appellant of compoundable offences, and reduced the sentences for non-compoundable offences. The core legal question was whether the High Court, having accepted the victims' and complainant's retraction of the allegations, was justified in maintaining convictions for non-compoundable offences rather than acquitting the appellant entirely. The Supreme Court held that once the High Court accepted the affidavits as truthful, the prosecution's case collapsed entirely. Consequently, the Court set aside the remaining convictions and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt. The key principle established is that if a court accepts the veracity of a complainant's and victim's retraction of allegations, it must reject the prosecution's case in its entirety rather than selectively maintaining convictions for non-compoundable offences.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court maintain a conviction for non-compoundable offences after accepting the complainant's and victims' affidavits that the allegations were factually incorrect?
  • Does the acceptance of a retraction of allegations by the complainant and victims necessitate the acquittal of the accused in its entirety?
  • Is it legally consistent to partially accept the truthfulness of a complainant's affidavit while upholding convictions for non-compoundable offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar vs Zulifat Shah2022 PHC 324 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-15Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs The State through DPG, NAB2022 MLD 600 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-31
  plea bargainaccountability appealappeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocenceillegal allotmentNational Accountability Bureaucorruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected accountability appeals: a conviction appeal filed by an accused against his deemed conviction following a plea bargain, and an acquittal appeal filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against the acquittal of co-accused officials. The core legal questions involved the voluntariness and legality of a plea bargain entered into under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and the strict parameters for interfering with a judgment of acquittal. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant's plea bargain was voluntary, lawful, and binding, and that his attempt to challenge it only after his co-accused were acquitted was an afterthought; the acquittal of co-accused on merits does not invalidate a prior voluntary plea bargain. Regarding the appeal against acquittal, the court held that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or misreading of evidence in the trial court's judgment, and the respondents were entitled to the double presumption of innocence. Both appeals were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused challenge a plea bargain on the ground that co-accused persons were subsequently acquitted on merits during the trial?
  • What are the parameters for interfering with a judgment of acquittal in a criminal or accountability appeal?
  • Whether official acts of functionaries are presumed to be regularly performed under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 in the absence of contrary proof?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs The State and another2022 MLD 456 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-15
  forgerycognizance of offenceprocedural barbenefit of doubtcriminal appealCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge for an offence under Section 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the alleged forgery of documents. The core legal questions were whether the trial court could take cognizance of the offence without compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the prosecution successfully proved the forgery charge. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable on two grounds. First, the complaint was procedurally barred under Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as there was no finding by a court regarding the forgery, nor was the complaint filed by the court itself. Second, on merits, the prosecution failed to produce the original documents or expert evidence to substantiate the forgery, relying instead on hearsay testimony. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution's case is doubtful.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the prosecution of forgery offences without a complaint from the court where the document was allegedly forged?
  • Is the failure to produce original documents in a forgery case fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction for forgery be sustained solely on the basis of testimony regarding an extra-judicial admission without expert evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Nisar Ahmad Khateeb and 2 others2022 CLC 1361 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-21Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace, etc2022 LHC 6253 · Lahore High Court · 2022-08-18Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Malik vs The Election Commission of Pakistan & others2022 SHC 234 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmad vs The state2022 MLD 978 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-22
  murdercriminal appealaccidental firingeyewitness testimonyburden of proofmotiveweapon recoverymedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Attock, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the murder of the deceased through a firearm injury. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the sustainability of the defence plea of accidental discharge during a scuffle, and the effect of an unproven motive on the prosecution's case. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the licensed weapon from the appellant, firmly established the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt, while the defence failed to discharge its burden under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 to substantiate its version of an accidental firing. The court established that minor discrepancies or police irregularities disowned promptly by the complainant do not vitiate a solid case, and that a weak or unproven motive is immaterial when direct eyewitness and medical evidence conclusively prove the guilt of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unproven motive shatter the prosecution's case when direct eyewitness and medical evidence are otherwise complete and reliable?
  • Whether the burden of proving a specific defence plea, such as accidental discharge, lies upon the accused under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can minor police irregularities or discrepancies in initial police proceedings vitiate a conviction where the complainant promptly files a private complaint correcting the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair Jakhrani vs The State2022 MLD 438 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-17
  trial in absentiaconviction in absentiaAnti-Terrorism Actdue processright to fair trialproclaimed offenderconstitutional violation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a judgment by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Jacobabad, which convicted the appellant in absentia under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, while simultaneously acquitting him of the main charges under Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a conviction in absentia, without proper framing of charges or evidence, is sustainable under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the trial and subsequent conviction in absentia were legally flawed and unconstitutional. Relying on established precedents, the High Court determined that conducting a trial in absentia without affording the accused an opportunity to be heard violates Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court emphasized that the trial court failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements, including the proper framing of charges and recording of evidence. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, affirming the principle that trial in absentia, absent strict adherence to legal procedure and constitutional guarantees, cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Is a conviction in absentia under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 sustainable if the trial court failed to frame a charge or record evidence against the accused?
  • Does a trial in absentia violate Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is an application under Section 19(12) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 a mandatory prerequisite for filing an appeal against a conviction in absentia?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair Anwar and another vs Secretary To Government of Pakistan, Establishment Division, Cabinet Block, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad and 3 others2022 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 123 · Federal Service Tribunal
  seniority listconstructive res judicatacivil servantsdeputationistselection of remedyomitted claim
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants, appointed as Patrolling Officers in 2001, challenged the Revised Seniority List dated 21.04.2017 and a departmental appeal order dated 30.08.2017. They prayed for a fresh seniority list to be prepared based on the principle of 'older in age' rather than merit, alleging that the department lacked the original merit list. The respondents opposed, arguing that the seniority list was prepared in compliance with a Supreme Court directive and that the appellants had not raised this objection in their previous round of litigation challenging the 2007 seniority list. The Federal Service Tribunal observed that under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the Tribunal is deemed a Civil Court and must apply the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Applying Order II Rule 2 of the Code, the Tribunal held that because the appellants omitted to raise the issue of the merit list in their initial litigation, they were barred by the doctrine of constructive res judicata from agitating it in a subsequent round. The appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of a claim or ground of objection in an initial service appeal bar a civil servant from agitating it in a subsequent round of litigation under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Are the provisions and procedural bars of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to proceedings before the Federal Service Tribunal?
  • Can a civil servant claim equal treatment or seniority on the basis of discrimination if other unqualified persons were allegedly retained in service in violation of service laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair Anwar and 2 others vs The State and another2022 P Cr. L J 170 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-09
  pre-arrest bailFIR delaycollective rolefalse implicationextraordinary reliefcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by three petitioners in connection with an FIR involving charges under Sections 324, 337-L(ii), 147, 149, and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court addressed the petitioners individually. The petition of the first petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution due to his failure to appear. The third petitioner withdrew his petition, resulting in its dismissal. Regarding the second petitioner, Muhammad Sarwar, the court noted a three-day delay in lodging the FIR without explanation, suggesting potential false implication. Furthermore, the court observed that no specific injury was attributed to this petitioner, who was assigned only a collective role. Emphasizing that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief intended to prevent victimization and that the petitioner had joined the investigation, the court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The court held that where the prosecution lacks sufficient incriminating material to connect an accused to the offense, and where the accused has a strong case for post-arrest bail, pre-arrest bail should be granted to avoid unnecessary incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Does a three-day unexplained delay in lodging an FIR provide grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Should pre-arrest bail be granted when only a collective role is attributed to an accused without specific injury?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when an accused has already joined the investigation and no useful purpose would be served by their incarceration?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair Ahmed vs The State2022 SHC 338 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-04Read full judgment →
• Zubair Ahmed and another vs Saima Anwar and another2022 YLR 1678 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-01Read full judgment →
• Zona Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd vs Province of Sindh & others2022 SHC 33, 2022 PTD 984 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-10Read full judgment →
• Ziarat Gul vs Mst. Yasmin and another2022 PHC 606 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-21Read full judgment →