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.

• Syed Hammad Raza vs Special Secretary Government of The Punjab and others2022 PLJ Lahore 956 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Hammad Raza vs Special Secretary Government of The Punjab and 62022 PLC (C.S.) 825 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-11
  disciplinary proceedingscompulsory retirementproportionality of penaltydiscriminationPEEDA Actmisconductservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Inspector in the Market Committee, challenged his compulsory retirement imposed following disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The petitioner was penalized for accepting time-barred dues on the orders of the Administrator, while the Secretary, Market Committee, received a significantly lighter penalty for similar involvement. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s compliance with superior orders absolved him of misconduct and whether the disparity in penalties constituted unlawful discrimination. The Court held that while a government servant cannot use compliance with illegal orders as a defense for misconduct, the principle of proportionality and equality must be maintained. Finding no distinguishing factor to justify the harsher penalty imposed on the petitioner compared to the Secretary, the Court ruled that the disparity violated Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, the Court partially accepted the petition, converting the petitioner's penalty of compulsory retirement to match the lesser penalty imposed on the Secretary, thereby upholding the principle of non-discrimination in administrative disciplinary actions.

  Questions settled

  • Does compliance with an illegal order from a superior officer constitute a valid defense against a charge of misconduct for a government servant?
  • Can a court interfere with a disciplinary penalty on the grounds of discrimination if a co-accused received a significantly lighter punishment for similar involvement?
  • Does the imposition of a harsher penalty on one employee compared to another involved in the same incident violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Haider Ali vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited etc2022 LHC 6227 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Gulistan vs Gulab Khan and 2 others2022 MLD 563 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-07-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghazi Shah vs The State and another2022 PLD Lahore 539 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-10
  anti-terrorismfund raising for proscribed organizationSection 11-H ATAsafe custody of forensic evidencebenefit of doubtacquittal appealproscribed organization
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal assails the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 11-F(6) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for allegedly collecting funds for a proscribed organization (Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan). The prosecution alleged that the appellant was apprehended red-handed collecting funds with a receipt book. The High Court observed that there was no evidence demonstrating that the appellant was a member of or associated with the proscribed organization, or how he incited the public. Crucially, none of the donors who allegedly paid the funds were joined in the investigation, despite Section 11-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 penalizing both the provision and receipt of terrorism funds. Furthermore, the safe custody and transmission of the recovered receipt books and specimen signatures to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency were not established, vitiating the forensic evidence. Holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to apprehend or investigate the donors of terrorism funds cast doubt on the prosecution's case against an alleged fund collector under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Does the lack of proof regarding safe custody and chain of transmission of recovered articles and specimen signatures render a forensic science report unreliable?
  • Can a conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for fund raising be sustained where there is no evidence establishing the accused's membership or link with a proscribed organization?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Faisal Mehboob vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 CLC 1153 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Atif Raza Shah vs Syed Fida Hussain Shah and another2022 SCMR 1262, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-02
  power of attorneyfiduciary relationshipconflict of interestsale mutationrepudiation of transactioncivil revisionsupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his challenge and upheld the decree in favor of respondent No. 1, who had successfully challenged a sale mutation executed by his attorney (respondent No. 2) in favor of the attorney's son (the petitioner). The core legal question revolved around whether an agent can transfer the principal's property to his own relative without consent, resulting in a conflict of interest and dishonest concealment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that an agent stands in a fiduciary relationship, must act in the interest of the principal, and cannot deal on his own account without full disclosure and consent. The Court laid down the principle that where an agent misuses authority, conceals material facts, or creates a conflict of interest to the disadvantage of the principal, the principal is legally entitled to repudiate the transaction under Section 215 of the Contract Act 1872, and the courts may rescind the same.

  Questions settled

  • Can a principal repudiate a transaction where an agent deals on his own account without the principal's consent?
  • What are the core duties of an agent operating under a power of attorney regarding conflict of interest?
  • Does the transfer of property by an attorney to his own son without prior disclosure constitute a dishonest concealment of material facts?
  • Can the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the misuse of a power of attorney be interfered with under civil revision without proving illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Atif Raza Shah vs Syed Fida Hussain Shah & another2022 PSC 766 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-02
  power of attorneyfiduciary relationshipconflict of interestsale mutationrepudiation of transactionmisuse of authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a civil petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the dismissal of his civil revision by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the concurrent judgments of the lower courts decreeing the respondent's suit for declaration and permanent injunction and dismissing the petitioner's suit for possession through partition. The core legal question centered on whether an attorney (agent) could validly transfer the principal's property to his own son without the principal's consent, amounting to a conflict of interest and misuse of authority. The Supreme Court held that the agent occupies a fiduciary position and must act advantageously and fairly toward the principal, avoiding any conflict of interest or dishonest concealment. The Court ruled that transferring property to the agent's relative without prior disclosure and consent constitutes misconduct and misuse of authority, entitling the principal to repudiate the transaction. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • What are the core duties of an agent under a power of attorney regarding conflict of interest and communication with the principal?
  • Under what conditions does a principal have the right to repudiate a transaction conducted by an agent under Section 215 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Does the transfer of property by an attorney in favor of his own son without the principal's consent constitute a misuse of authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Athar Hussain Shah vs Haji Muhammad Riaz and another2022 SCP 11, 2022 PSC 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-02
  specific performancelimitation periodpart performanceshield and sword principlecancellation of sale deeddeclaratory suitrejection of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition seeking to set aside three concurrent judgments dismissing the petitioner's third suit for specific performance, cancellation of a sale deed, and a declaration of ownership regarding a piece of land. The core legal question is whether the third suit was barred by limitation and whether adding a declaratory prayer or invoking part performance under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 could save an otherwise time-barred suit for specific performance and cancellation of a deed. The Supreme Court held that once the period of limitation commences, it cannot be stopped or avoided by reformulating reliefs or adding a declaratory prayer where the primary relief is time-barred. Furthermore, section 53-A acts only as a shield for a defendant in possession and cannot be used as a sword or weapon of offence to initiate a suit. Consequently, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit as time-barred, declined leave to appeal, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether once the period of limitation commences it can be stopped or avoided by introducing another cause of action or relief in a suit?
  • Can section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 be utilized as a weapon of offence to assert title or initiate a suit rather than as a shield in defense?
  • Does the addition of a declaratory relief save a suit from being time-barred when the primary reliefs sought are for specific performance and cancellation of a deed filed beyond the prescribed limitation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Asif Shah vs Mazhar Javed and others2022 CLC 1985 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Asghar Ali Shah vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary Local2022 CLC 442 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Asghar Ali Shah vs Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Ghotki Circle and 6 others2022 P Cr. L J 709 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-28
  quashing of FIRpolitical victimizationAnti-Corruption Establishmenttransfer of inquiryjudicial reviewpolice misconductconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a former elected chairman of the Municipal Committee Ghotki seeking the quashing of an FIR and an ongoing inquiry by the Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE), alleging political victimization by a provincial minister and harassment by local ACE officials. The core legal questions involved whether an FIR and ongoing anti-corruption inquiries tainted by political bias and compromised local officials should be quashed or transferred, and the conduct of law-enforcing officers associating with politicians. The Sindh High Court held that since the FIR had already been returned by the magistrate for presentation before the proper anti-corruption court (where remedies like acquittal under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 could be sought), no order for quashing the FIR was necessary. However, acknowledging the petitioner's justified mistrust of the local inquiry due to the Circle Officer's improper association with a political figure, the court ordered the inquiry to be transferred from Ghotki to Sukkur to be completed within three months, and directed disciplinary proceedings against the Circle Officer. The key principles laid down include the prohibition against law enforcement officers acting under political dictation, the impropriety of investigating officers visiting the otaqs of influential persons, and the requirement for a criminal justice system free from political pressure.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ongoing criminal inquiry can be quashed solely on the ground of political motivation?
  • Can an inquiry pending before the Anti-Corruption Establishment in one district be transferred to another district due to justifiable mistrust of local officials?
  • Does visiting the otaq of a politician or influential person by a law enforcement officer amount to misconduct requiring disciplinary action?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Arshad Ali vs Secretary M/O. Housing & Works, Islamabad and others2022 PLJ SC 144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-22
  seniority listcivil servantsappointment by transferpromotionservice appealfederal service tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged the dismissal of his service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding a final seniority list of Assistants in the Ministry of Housing and Works. The core legal question was whether civil servants appointed by transfer take seniority over those promoted to the same post in the same calendar year under Rule 6 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under the unamended Rule 6, persons appointed by transfer in a particular calendar year rank as a class senior to those appointed by promotion or initial appointment in that same year. The Court laid down the principle that where both transfer and promotion occur in the same calendar year, appointees by transfer (unless transferred at their own request under specific exceptions) hold senior positions over promotees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether persons appointed by transfer in a particular calendar year are senior to those appointed by promotion to such posts in the same year under Rule 6 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993?
  • Does a civil servant transferred to another office on their own volition count past service for seniority in the new office?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Amjad Hussain Jaffri, etc vs Addl. District Judge, etc2022 LHC 4740, 2022 PLJ Lahore 906 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Amjad Ali Shah vs Deputy Controller, Pakistan Television Corporation2022 LHC 4694 · Lahore High Court
  writ jurisdictionmaster and servantstatutory rulesservice mattersPakistan Television CorporationmaintainabilityLeave Preparatory to Retirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an office order directing the petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan Television Corporation (PTVC), to proceed on Leave Preparatory to Retirement. The core legal question was whether the PTVC Employees Service Rules of 1978 are statutory in nature, thereby allowing an aggrieved employee to invoke the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that the PTVC Employees Service Rules are non-statutory. Consequently, the employment relationship between the petitioner and PTVC is governed by the principle of master and servant, precluding the enforcement of service terms through a constitutional petition. The Court affirmed that rules do not become statutory merely because they are adopted by a statutory body or approved by a government authority; rather, statutory rules must be framed under delegated legislative power, often requiring publication in the official gazette. Where service rules are non-statutory, constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked for reinstatement or service disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Are the Pakistan Television Corporation Limited Employees Service Rules of 1978 statutory in nature?
  • Can an employee of a public sector company invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for service-related grievances if the service rules are non-statutory?
  • Does the adoption of service rules by the National Industrial Relations Commission under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, render those rules statutory?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Amjad Ali Shah vs Deputy Controller, Admin and Personal-III PTV, Islamabad and 3 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 1433 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-21
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitymaster and servantstatutory rulesservice matterLeave Preparatory to RetirementPakistan Television Corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan Television Corporation (PTVC), challenged an office order directing him to proceed on Leave Preparatory to Retirement (LPR) via a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. The core legal question was whether the PTVC Employees Service Rules of 1978 constitute statutory rules, thereby permitting the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction in a service-related dispute. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It determined that the PTVC Employees Service Rules are non-statutory, as they were not framed under delegated legislative power derived from a parent Act, despite being adopted by the National Industrial Relations Commission under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. Consequently, the relationship between the petitioner and PTVC is governed by the master-servant principle, precluding the maintainability of a writ petition for service grievances. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction in service matters is only available where employment is governed by statutory rules, and the mere adoption of rules by a regulatory authority does not confer statutory status upon them.

  Questions settled

  • Are the Pakistan Television Corporation Limited Employees Service Rules of 1978 considered statutory rules?
  • Can an employee of a public sector company invoke constitutional jurisdiction for service matters if their employment is not governed by statutory rules?
  • Does the adoption of service rules by the National Industrial Relations Commission under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, render those rules statutory?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against a public sector company for a grievance arising from a master-servant relationship?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ameer Ali through Attorney and 2 others vs National Bank of Pakistan2022 CLD 872 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Hamza and others vs Province Of The Punjab and others2022 PLC (C.S.) 525 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-30
  constitutional petitionregularization of servicedaily wagesmaster and servantcontract employmentArticle 25 discriminationefflux of timeLahore Arts Council
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, challenging a quasi-judicial order dated 30.09.2020 that denied their request for regularization of service. The petitioners were engaged by the Lahore Arts Council on work charge/daily wages basis for temporary 89-day terms under Clause 89(d) of the Lahore Arts Council (Alhamra) Regulations 2010. They contended that their appointments were extended from time to time, the posts were permanent, and denial of regularization constituted discrimination under Article 25. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that employees appointed on contract or daily wages for a fixed tenure have no vested right to claim regularization or extension upon expiry by efflux of time. Having accepted the contractual terms, petitioners could not resile from them. Furthermore, in the absence of violation of statutory service rules, contractual employment is governed by the master and servant principle, barring writ jurisdiction. The Court also held that petitioners failed the department's regularization criteria and reasonable classification does not violate Article 25.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contract or daily-wage employee claim extension or regularization of service as a matter of vested right after accepting fixed-term appointment conditions?
  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution maintainable to enforce service rights where the employment is contractual and governed by the master and servant rule?
  • Does the differential treatment of daily-wage employees based on failure to fulfill prescribed departmental eligibility criteria violate Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can courts interfere with an employer's policy decisions regarding qualifications, suitability, and criteria for regular service appointments?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Asim Jaffari, etc vs Qamar Abbas, etc2022 PLJ Islamabad 214 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmed Hussain Salman alias SP and 2 others vs The State2022 YLR 2276 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-14
  identification paradebenefit of doubtsole eye-witnessanti-terrorismcriminal appealprocedural defectsacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants by an Anti-Terrorism Court for offences related to an explosive attack on a Rangers post. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the identity of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of a sole eye-witness and the procedural integrity of the identification parade. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the eye-witness failed to provide a description of the assailants in his initial statement, the identification parade was conducted with significant procedural defects, and there was no independent corroborative evidence. The Court emphasized that identification of strangers based on fleeting glimpses requires extreme caution and strict adherence to procedural safeguards. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, ruling that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, and ordered their acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the evidence of a sole eye-witness when the identification parade suffers from procedural defects?
  • Is an identification parade reliable if the witness did not provide a description of the accused in their initial statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the statement of a co-accused be used as evidence against other accused persons without independent corroborative evidence?
  • Does the failure to provide a description of an unknown assailant in the FIR or initial police statement undermine the credibility of subsequent identification proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmad Sher vs Addl. District Judge, etc2022 LHC 3000, 2022 PLD Lahore 715 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Rehman vs Mst. Naheed Hussain and Others2022 SHC 438 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-26Read full judgment →
• Suriya Nafees vs Muhammad Ramzan Shahid etc2022 LHC 1989 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-18Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court Employees Co-Operative Housing Society, Islamabad vs Messrs Marshal Construction Management through Managing Partner and another2022 SCMR 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-12-08
  interim injunctionjoint venture agreementbreach of contractrevisional jurisdictionprima facie casebalance of conveniencespecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an Islamabad High Court order that set aside lower court decisions dismissing an injunction application filed by the respondent. The dispute arose from a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) for a housing project, which the petitioner terminated due to the respondent's alleged failure to perform contractual obligations and lack of financial capacity. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by failing to consider the three essential ingredients for granting an injunction: a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The Court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate a prima facie case, particularly given their admission of non-performance and retention of substantial funds. The Court emphasized that interim injunctions must align with the principles of the Specific Relief Act 1877, and where specific performance is not viable, injunctions should be denied. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the lower courts' dismissal of the injunction.

  Questions settled

  • What are the three essential ingredients that must be established for the grant of an interim injunction?
  • Can an interim injunction be granted in a contract dispute where specific performance of the contract cannot be allowed under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Does an order passed on an interlocutory application have a binding effect on the final outcome of the main proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan through its President, Supreme Court Building, Islamabad vs Federation of Pakistan through M/o Interior Islamabad and others2022 SCP 84, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 488 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-17
  defalcationArticle 63Apolitical partiesfundamental rightsparliamentary democracyfloor crossingPresidential Reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a Presidential Reference under Article 186 of the Constitution of Pakistan alongside constitutional petitions under Article 184(3), concerning the interpretation and application of Article 63A relating to the defection of parliamentarians. By a majority of three to two, the Supreme Court addressed questions regarding parliamentary floor-crossing, political party cohesion, and fundamental rights. The core legal question centered on how Article 63A of the Constitution should be interpreted in relation to political parties and whether votes cast contrary to party directions should be disregarded. The majority held that Article 63A must be interpreted in a purposive manner aligned with Article 17, protecting the collective rights and cohesion of political parties against defection, which is characterized as a cancer to democracy. Consequently, the Court ruled that the vote of any member cast contrary to party directions must be disregarded, regardless of subsequent defection declarations. The key principle laid down is that Article 63A functions to ensure political party cohesion in the legislative arena, and individual member votes cast in violation of party directions cannot be counted.

  Questions settled

  • How should Article 63A of the Constitution be interpreted in relation to the fundamental rights of political parties under Article 17?
  • Should the vote of a member of a Parliamentary Party cast contrary to party directions be counted or disregarded?
  • Can a declaration of defection under Article 63A serve as a disqualification under Article 63 of the Constitution?
  • Does Article 63A constitute a complete code in itself regarding the procedure and consequences of member defection?
  Read full judgment →
• Sungi Development Foundation Employees Provident Fund Trustees vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Revenue and Economic Affairs and others2022 PTD 1690 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-16Read full judgment →
• Summit Bank Ltd. and others vs Province of Sindh and others2022 PTD 1279 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-02Read full judgment →
• Summit Bank Limited, Lahore vs M/s M.M. Brothers, Proprietorship Concern,2022 SCP 410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  execution proceedingscourt auctionproclamation of salenewspaper publicationcompetitive biddingFinancial Institutions Ordinancereserve pricesetting aside sale
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Petition for leave to appeal arose from an execution proceeding under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, where mortgaged property of the judgment debtors was sold via court auction to the decree-holder bank as the sole bidder at reserve price. The Lahore High Court set aside the sale and remanded the matter due to the lack of proper publication in widely circulated newspapers. The Supreme Court considered whether the failure of the Executing Court to order newspaper publication under Order XXI, Rule 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 vitiated the auction sale. Upholding the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court held that the primary object of execution sale rules is to secure the fair market value through competitive bidding with at least two potential bidders. Although publication under Rule 67(2) may be directory in form, non-compliance causing substantial injustice and prejudice invalidates the sale. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court auction sale be set aside if the Executing Court fails to publish the proclamation in a widely circulated newspaper causing prejudice to the judgment debtor?
  • Is competitive bidding involving at least two prospective bidders required for conducting a valid public auction under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the failure to comply with the proclamation procedures under Order XXI Rules 54 and 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 render an execution sale voidable where injustice has resulted?
  Read full judgment →
• Sumaira Ashraf vs Dr. Muhammad Shafiq etc2022 LHC 3088 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-26Read full judgment →
• Sultanat Khan and another vs Sadbar Khan and others2022 PHC 426 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-03Read full judgment →
• Sultan Yousaf & others vs Muhammad Sherin & others2022 PHC 42, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 75, 2022 CLC 1690 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-13Read full judgment →
• Sultan Qamar Siddiqui and others vs National Accountability Bureau and others2022 PCRLJ 876 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-27
  unfreezing bank accountsacquittalacquittal appealassets beyond known sources of incomeconstitutional petitionNational Accountability Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court impugning the dismissal of applications seeking the unfreezing of bank accounts that had been frozen under section 23 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 during a trial for accumulating assets beyond known sources of income. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner was acquitted by the trial court, but a subsequent application to lift the caution on the accounts was dismissed due to the pendency of an acquittal appeal filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The core legal question was whether frozen bank accounts must remain frozen simply because NAB has filed an appeal against the accused's acquittal. The court held that upon acquittal, the evidentiary basis for freezing the property ends, and the mere filing of an acquittal appeal does not constitute a continuation of the trial so as to justify maintaining the freeze. The court laid down the principle that the double presumption of innocence following acquittal strongly favors the release of the accused's property, and the pendency of an acquittal appeal does not deprive the accused of their constitutional right to deal with their property.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of an accused person terminate the legal basis for freezing property under section 23 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Whether the mere filing of an acquittal appeal by the National Accountability Bureau acts as a bar to unfreezing an acquitted person's bank accounts?
  • Can an Accountability Court refuse to lift a caution on property after the trial has concluded in an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Mehmood vs Province of Punjab through its Chief Secretary, Lahore2022 LHC 8562 · Lahore High Court
  constitutional petitionservice matterjurisdictional barcompulsory retirementterms and conditions of servicePEEDA ActService Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner, an EST/SVT (BS-16), following disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The petitioner alleged that the inquiry, which concerned irregularities in his initial appointment, did not relate to his terms and conditions of service, thereby bypassing the jurisdictional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court addressed the core question of whether it possessed jurisdiction to entertain the petition despite the constitutional ouster. Holding that the petition was not maintainable, the Court ruled that the bar under Article 212 is absolute and inflexible. It established that terms and conditions of service encompass the initial appointment process; thus, any disciplinary action arising from alleged pre-induction irregularities constitutes a service matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked in service matters, regardless of allegations of coram non judice or discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain a petition by a civil servant regarding disciplinary action taken for irregularities in their initial appointment?
  • Is the bar on jurisdiction contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 applicable to disciplinary proceedings concerning pre-induction irregularities?
  • Can a civil servant invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court on the grounds that a departmental order is coram non judice or discriminatory?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman vs The State2022 PHC 58, 2022 MLD 1612 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-18
  narcoticschain of custodybenefit of doubtcriminal appealrecoverysafe custodymaterial contradictionsforensic science laboratory
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9-D of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019, arising from the alleged recovery of 7028 grams of Charas from a vehicle. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the recovery beyond reasonable doubt and whether the chain of custody for the narcotic samples was maintained. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions between witnesses regarding the recovery process, the vehicle's operation, and the site proceedings. Furthermore, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, noting a two-day delay and the absence of key witnesses who handled the evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, holding that any break in the chain of custody or reasonable doubt regarding the recovery renders the conviction unsafe. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of doubt in criminal cases is a right of the accused, not a matter of grace, and must be extended whenever the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a break in the chain of custody or safe transmission of narcotic samples render a conviction unsafe?
  • Is the prosecution required to explain a delay in sending recovered narcotics to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
  • Does the failure to produce the best evidence available to the prosecution create an adverse presumption under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Must the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused as a matter of right when material contradictions exist in the prosecution's evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman Shah vs Judge Family Court/Additional District and Session2022 CLC 1454 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-03-25Read full judgment →
• Suleman Khan vs Government Of Balochistan through Secretary Home &2022 PLJ Quetta 156, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 428 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-11-08
  constitutional petitionshaheed quotapolice departmentemployment policynominee of spouse
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the Police Department under the Shaheed Quota based on his qualifications and various government notifications. The core legal question was whether a brother of a martyred police official is eligible for appointment under the Shaheed Quota as a nominee of the spouse under the applicable government policies. The Balochistan High Court held that under the modified policy notifications, particularly the notification dated 15.04.2015, if a Shaheed employee was married, either the spouse, one child, or a nominee of the spouse may be given employment provided they qualify for the post. Since both widows of the deceased Sub-Inspector appeared before the court and filed affidavits nominating their brother-in-law (the petitioner) for the appointment, the court accepted the petition and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner according to his qualifications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a brother of a martyred police employee can be appointed under the Shaheed Quota as a nominee of the spouse under the applicable government notifications?
  • Does the notification dated 15.04.2015 issued by the Finance Department Government of Balochistan allow the nomination of a family member other than the spouse or child for employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman and another vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1623 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-12-04
  criminal appealocular evidencebenefit of doubtmurderwitness credibilitySection 161 CrPCballistic reportacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for the murder of the deceased, as handed down by the Sessions Judge, Gwadar. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony provided by interested witnesses, the impact of unexplained delays in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the evidentiary value of weapon recovery when ocular evidence is discredited. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the witnesses could not have identified the assailants in the dark without a proven source of light, and the unexplained delay in recording their statements rendered their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the court noted significant contradictions regarding the investigation officer's presence at the crime scene and the recovery site, alongside an unexplained delay in forensic analysis. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, affirming the principle that the benefit of every doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a proven light source at the scene of a nighttime occurrence render the identification of assailants by eye-witnesses unreliable?
  • Is an unexplained delay in recording the statements of eye-witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can the recovery of a crime weapon sustain a conviction if the primary ocular evidence has been disbelieved by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Suit Southern Gas Company Limited vs Oil & Gas Regulatory Authority &2022 P C T L R 308 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Officers Association through Secretary vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary and 3 others2022 PLC 58 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-24
  industry-wise trade unionN.I.R.C.trade union registrationcancellation of registrationwrit jurisdictionIndustrial Relations Act 2012jurisdiction of N.I.R.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) cancelling the registration of the petitioner, an industry-wise trade union. The core legal question was whether the N.I.R.C. possessed the jurisdiction to cancel such registration, or if this authority was exclusively reserved for the Registrar of Trade Unions. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the N.I.R.C. maintains the jurisdiction to cancel the registration of an industry-wise trade union. Relying on the precedent established in Chevron Pakistan Lubricants (Private) Limited v. Federation of Pakistan, the Court affirmed that 'trade unions' and 'industry-wise trade unions' are distinct legal entities. Consequently, the power to register and cancel the registration of an industry-wise trade union vests in the Commission, not the Registrar. The Court further observed that Regulation 10A of the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 2016, explicitly empowers the Commission to perform functions equivalent to the Registrar regarding industry-wise trade unions. As an appeal was already pending before the N.I.R.C., the Court declined to exercise its Constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have the jurisdiction to cancel the registration of an industry-wise trade union?
  • Are 'trade unions' and 'industry-wise trade unions' treated as distinct entities under the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
  • Does the power to grant registration to an industry-wise trade union imply the power to cancel such registration?
  • Can the High Court exercise Constitutional jurisdiction when an appeal is already pending before the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd., Regional Office and others vs Muhammad2022 MLD 1664 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-30
  gas theftGas Utility Courtcriminal acquittal appealprivate complaintnon-cognizable offencemandatory procedurestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal acquittal appeals filed by Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. challenge the orders of the trial court acquitting the respondents of charges relating to gas theft under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016. The core legal question was whether the trial court rightly acquitted the accused where the gas utility company had mistakenly initiated proceedings through police FIRs instead of filing a formal private complaint as mandated by the statute. The Balochistan High Court held that the offences under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 are non-cognizable and that Section 5(2) of the Act expressly restricts cognizance exclusively upon a written complaint made by an authorized person, overriding contrary procedures. The Court affirmed that when a statute requires something to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner and not otherwise. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals, ruling that the initiation of FIRs instead of statutory complaints was fundamentally flawed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Gas Utility Court take cognizance of an offence under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 upon a police FIR rather than a written complaint?
  • Whether offences punishable under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 are cognizable or non-cognizable in nature?
  • Does the requirement under Section 5(2) of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 for a complaint by an authorized person operate with an overriding non-obstante effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Company Limited and others vs Saeed Ahmed Khoso2022 SCMR 1256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-01
  master and servantnon-statutory rulesconstitutional jurisdictiontermination of serviceregularizationlimited companyreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a High Court judgment that set aside the termination of Respondent No.1 and directed his reinstatement and regularization. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the High Court correctly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 in a service matter involving non-statutory rules. The Court observed that the Appellant's employment rules are non-statutory, meaning the relationship between the employer and employee is governed by the principle of master and servant. The Court rejected the Respondent's argument that government shareholding in a limited company transforms its internal rules into statutory ones, distinguishing between statutory corporations and limited companies. It held that since the appointment letter allowed for termination via three months' notice, the termination was lawful under the contract. The Court concluded that a constitutional petition is not the appropriate forum for such service disputes where rules are non-statutory. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside, allowing the Respondent to seek alternative legal remedies.

  Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Limited, etc vs Muhammad Shafi2022 PLJ Lahore 159 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-01Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipe Lines Limited, etc. vs Farman Ali, etc.2022 LHC 6389, 2024 CLC 164, 2022 [M] CLR 1593 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-07Read full judgment →
• Suhbat Khan Pathan vs The State2022 SHC 440, 2024 YLR 1408 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-21
  narcotic substancessafe custodysafe transmissionpolice witness credibilitycriminal appealrecovery of narcoticschemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the possession and transportation of 100 kilograms of charas, an offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody for the narcotics, whether the testimony of police officials required independent corroboration, and if the appellant’s defense of false implication was substantiated. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that the testimony of police officials is as credible as that of private witnesses, provided no animus is proven, and that the reluctance of the public to act as witnesses is a judicially recognized fact. Furthermore, the Court held that the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and transmission of the samples to the chemical examiner, as corroborated by relevant register entries and the chemical report. The principle laid down is that the burden of proof regarding a specific defense plea lies with the accused under Article 121 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials requires independent corroboration in narcotics cases?
  • Does the absence of private witnesses in a narcotics recovery case automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • What is the standard for establishing the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotic samples to a chemical examiner?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained based on the testimony of police officials alone?
  Read full judgment →
• Subhanullah vs The State2022 SCMR 1052, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 201, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-08
  safe custody of samplessafe transmissionMalkhana Mohararnarcoticsbenefit of doubtControl of Narcotic Substances Actacquittalchain of custody
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition for leave to appeal against the Peshawar High Court's judgment upholding the petitioner's conviction and life sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The primary legal question was whether the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt when it failed to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered narcotics sample parcels. The Supreme Court observed that the Moharar who allegedly kept the samples in the Malkhana and the police constable who allegedly transported them to the laboratory were never produced as witnesses, leaving their non-production unexplained. The Court held that establishing safe custody in the Malkhana and safe transmission to the chemical examiner is an essential requirement of law. The failure to do so created serious doubt regarding the integrity of the recovered contraband. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the petitioner by extending the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prosecution's failure to produce the Moharar and the carrier of sample parcels break the chain of custody in a narcotics case?
  • Can an accused be convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 if safe custody and safe transmission of samples are not proved beyond reasonable doubt?
  • What is the legal effect of withholding material witnesses responsible for safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples without explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Subhan Allah vs The State & another2022 LHC 6197 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-14
  fair trialpolice registersprivileged documentsSection 172 CrPCSection 94 CrPCcriminal revisionright to defensepolice diary
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, facing trial for explosive-related offenses, challenged the trial court's order dismissing his application to summon specific police registers (No. 2, 19, and 21). The trial court had ruled these documents were privileged under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court examined whether police registers maintained under the Police Rules, 1934, fall under the privilege of Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exclusively governs the 'case diary' of an investigating officer and does not extend to general police registers. Consequently, the trial court's refusal was set aside. The Court emphasized that under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the right to a fair trial is paramount. Trial courts possess broad powers under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon documents necessary for a just decision. The principle established is that police registers are public documents, not privileged, and must be produced if deemed necessary for the defense to ensure a fair trial and prevent miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Are police registers maintained under the Police Rules, 1934, considered privileged documents under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a trial court have the authority to summon police registers for the purpose of a fair trial?
  • Is the scope of Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 limited to the case diary of an investigating officer?
  • Can an accused person request the production of police registers to challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad ZeeshanPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1568 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-24Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad HafeezPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 949 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-27
  narcoticsvehicle releasesuperdariconfessional statementcontrol of narcotic substancesvehicle confiscation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 challenges an order passed by the Special Court CNS, Lahore, whereby a car involved in a narcotics case was released to the brother of the convict upon conviction. The core legal question concerns the legality of releasing a vehicle seized during a narcotics offense to its registered owner following the conclusion of the trial and conviction of the accused. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court's decision to release the vehicle to its rightful owner was justified, noting that the vehicle was owned prior to the commission of the offence and that the owner had no prior knowledge of its misuse in narcotics trafficking. The key principle laid down is that an innocent owner of a vehicle used in a crime is entitled to its return unless the prosecution establishes that the owner had knowledge of such use, and vehicles not falling strictly within statutory seizure parameters or belonging to innocent third parties may be returned upon due verification.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle seized during a narcotics offense be released to its owner after the trial concludes?
  • What are the circumstances under which a vehicle can be legally seized under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is an innocent owner entitled to the return of a vehicle used in a crime under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• State vs Dilnawaz etc2022 PHC 480 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-21Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Said2022 PCRLJ 1560 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-23
  narcoticsacquittal appealchain of custodyforensic science laboratory reportbenefit of doubtpresumption of innocencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent-accused in a narcotics case involving the alleged recovery of 12,000 grams of chars and 4,000 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the integrity of the investigation and the forensic evidence. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions regarding the time and manner of the recovery, as witness testimonies were inconsistent. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and transmission of the recovered samples to the laboratory. Additionally, the Forensic Science Laboratory report was deemed unreliable as it failed to specify the test protocols applied, violating established legal requirements. The Court reiterated the principle that the scope of interference in an acquittal is narrow, as the presumption of innocence is doubled, and the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof required for conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish the safe custody and transmission of recovered narcotics samples entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Is a Forensic Science Laboratory report admissible for conviction if it fails to specify the test protocols applied?
  • What is the scope of appellate interference in a judgment of acquittal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the time and place of recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Gul2022 PCRLJ 1610 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-14
  narcotic possessionsafe custody of samplesforensic science laboratoryacquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencechain of custodytest protocols
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent, who was charged with the possession of 3045 grams of chars under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody for the narcotic samples and whether the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was admissible given procedural lapses. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the samples, noting a significant delay in delivery and the failure to examine the constable responsible for transporting the samples. Furthermore, the Court found the FSL report defective for lacking the requisite test protocols. Emphasizing that an acquittal grants the accused a double presumption of innocence, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof required to invalidate the trial court's well-reasoned judgment. The decision reaffirms that strict adherence to chain-of-custody protocols and transparent forensic reporting is mandatory for conviction in narcotics cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to establish the safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory render the forensic report inadmissible?
  • Is a Forensic Science Laboratory report valid if it fails to specify the test protocols applied to the samples?
  • What is the standard of evidence required to set aside an order of acquittal in a criminal case?
  • Does the non-production of the official responsible for transporting narcotic samples to the laboratory create a fatal gap in the prosecution's chain of custody?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate-General, ICT vs Learned Additional Sessions2022 PLJ Islamabad 170 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• State through Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Sajid2022 PHC 226 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar vs Amanat Khan and others2022 PSC (Crl.) 710 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-06
  murderacquittalocular testimonyabsconsionforensic reportleave to appealreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which acquitted the respondent of a murder charge. The respondent had been convicted by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to death for the murder of Javed Ali Shah. The prosecution's case relied on ocular testimony from natural witnesses and the respondent's subsequent absconsion. The High Court overturned the conviction, citing investigative flaws and forensic discrepancies, specifically the incompatibility of the recovered weapon with the crime scene casings. The State challenged this acquittal, arguing that the High Court erroneously prioritized peripheral investigative defects over credible ocular evidence and failed to account for the respondent's absconsion. The Supreme Court, finding merit in the arguments regarding the potential misappreciation of evidence, granted leave to appeal to reappraise the entire evidence. The Court held that the case warrants a comprehensive review to ensure the ends of justice are met, particularly regarding the weight of ocular testimony versus forensic findings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a negative forensic report regarding a recovered weapon necessarily destroy the intrinsic value of credible ocular testimony in a murder case?
  • Can an appellate court acquit a respondent based on peripheral investigative flaws when there is consistent ocular evidence from natural witnesses?
  • What is the legal effect of an accused's absconsion on the prosecution's case when other evidence is present?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Zonal Head/Attorney2022 CLD 1048 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-24Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation Of Pakistan through Zonal Head/Attorney2022 CLD 190 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-14Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Zonal Head vs Kausar2022 CLD 1340 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-12Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation Of Pakistan through Chairman/Zonal2022 CLD 1026 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-22Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Chairman and another vs Mst. Shahida Parveen2022 CLD 1310 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-01Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Mohammad Naeem & others2022 SCP 414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-10
  Civil ReviewConstitution of BenchesTwo Member BenchThree Member BenchModification of High Court JudgmentLeave to AppealSupreme Court RulesDollar Bearer Certificate
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil review petition was filed by the State Bank of Pakistan seeking review of an order dated 04.09.2020 passed by a two-member Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in CPLA No. 146-K of 2019. The earlier Bench, without formally granting leave to appeal, had modified a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh by reducing the awarded rate of markup from 10% to 2% based on a concession made by respondent No. 1's counsel. The petitioner contended that modifying the Division Bench judgment required hearing before a three-member Bench under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.

  The Supreme Court accepted the review petition, holding that under Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, read with Article 191 of the Constitution, a two-member Bench is empowered to grant or dismiss a petition for leave to appeal, but lacks jurisdiction to modify, alter, or amend a Division Bench judgment of a High Court. Such modification requires disposal by a Bench of not less than three Judges. Consequently, the earlier order was recalled and the civil petition was restored to be heard afresh by a three-member Bench.

  Questions settled

  • Can a two-member Bench of the Supreme Court modify or alter a Division Bench judgment of a High Court without granting leave to appeal?
  • Under Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, what is the minimum bench size required to hear and dispose of an appeal or modify a High Court Division Bench judgment?
  • Does a statement or concession by one party's counsel empower a two-member Bench of the Supreme Court to amend a High Court Division Bench decree at the leave-granting stage?
  Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Pioneer Alliance Pvt. Ltd2022 CLD 1008 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-09Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Federation of Pakistan and four others2022 LHC 7273 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-26Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan through Director vs Bankers Equity Limited (Bel) and 3 others2022 CLD 775 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-01
  quashing of proceedingsbanking companymisreporting of liquiditymens reacriminal original miscellaneous application
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal original miscellaneous application was filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for quashing proceedings arising from a complaint under sections 83(1), (1-A) and 84 of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, initiated by the State Bank of Pakistan against officers of Bankers Equity Limited for alleged misreporting of liquidity and false representation regarding a subordinated loan. The core legal questions involved whether proceedings could be quashed under section 561-A when a previous coordinate bench had already held that a triable case was made out, and whether the absence of mens rea warranted quashment prior to recording evidence. The High Court held that a Single Judge cannot sit in judgment over an earlier order of a coordinate bench finding a triable case, and that questions of mens rea and factual liability must be determined after evidence is led at trial. The application was accordingly dismissed with directions to frame the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Single Judge has jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to review or quash proceedings after a coordinate bench has already found that a triable case is made out?
  • Can the question of absence of mens rea be determined at the quashment stage without recording evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Whether misreporting liquidity to the State Bank of Pakistan under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 constitutes grounds for criminal prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• State Bank Of Pakistan through Chief Manager, Peshawar vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defense, Rawalpindi and 5 others2022 PLD Peshawar 46 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-10
  property tax exemptioncantonment board taxationconstitutional immunitysovereign functionsstate bank of pakistancorporate veilfederal government property
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the State Bank of Pakistan against the Federation of Pakistan and Cantonment authorities, challenging the levy and demand of property tax on properties owned and occupied by the petitioner within cantonment limits. The core legal question was whether the State Bank of Pakistan, as a statutory body performing sovereign central banking functions with its capital wholly held by the Federal Government, is entitled to exemption from property tax under Section 99(2)(f) of the Cantonment Act 1924 and Article 165 of the Constitution. The Peshawar High Court held that the State Bank of Pakistan, despite being a corporate body, performs sovereign functions of the Federal Government, making it merely the ostensible owner while true title vests in the Federal Government. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner's properties are exempt from property tax, declaring the notices and recovery proceedings initiated by the Cantonment Boards to be illegal, without lawful authority, and of no legal effect. The key principle laid down is that state instrumentalities fulfilling sovereign functions with exclusive federal ownership and control enjoy constitutional immunity from provincial and local taxation under Article 165 of the Constitution and statutory exemptions under the Cantonment Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the State Bank of Pakistan is exempt from the levy of property tax under Section 99(2)(f) of the Cantonment Act 1924?
  • Does the State Bank of Pakistan enjoy immunity from taxation under Article 165 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in respect of its properties?
  • Whether a Cantonment Board has the legal authority to impose and collect property tax on properties vested in the Federal Government?
  • Does the existence of an alternative statutory remedy bar the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction against unauthorized tax recovery proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan through Chief Manager vs Federation of Pakistan2022 CLC 1574 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-31Read full judgment →
• Spirit Industries (Pvt.) Limited & others vs Province of Sindh & others2022 SHC 136 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-15Read full judgment →
• Southern Networks Limited through Authorized Representative vs Pakistan2022 PLD Sindh 6 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-02Read full judgment →
• Sorat Khan vs The State2022 YLR 406 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-28
  circumstantial evidenceconfessional statementextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtanti-terrorismbomb blastvehicle ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 in connection with a fatal car bomb explosion targeting a judicial convoy. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through circumstantial evidence, specifically regarding vehicle ownership, extra-judicial confession, and a judicial confession under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's ownership and possession of the crime vehicle, that the confessions were involuntary and tainted by police torture, and that missing links in the circumstantial evidence rendered the case doubtful. The court laid down the principle that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the links in the chain must be unbroken, and that a retracted confession bearing indications of torture or coercion cannot form the basis of a conviction without strong, independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence when the links in the chain of evidence are incomplete?
  • Is a judicial confession admissible when the record indicates it was preceded by police torture?
  • Whether an extra-judicial confession can form the basis of a conviction without strong independent corroboration?
  • Does failure to prove ownership and control of a vehicle allegedly used in a crime vitiate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sonhara vs Faiz Ellahi alias Faizan Mai, etc2022 LHC 2961 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-21Read full judgment →
• Sohail Akhtar vs The State through P.G. Punjab and another2022 SCMR 1447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-27
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryDNA evidencemedico-legal reportpersonal libertydelay in trialsodomy
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that denied post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was accused of kidnapping and sodomy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting nature of the medical report, which showed no signs of injury, and the DNA report, which implicated the petitioner, alongside the significant delay in trial proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that the DNA report could not override the prompt medico-legal report at the bail stage, and the two-day delay in lodging the FIR suggested potential deliberation. Furthermore, emphasizing that personal liberty is a cherished constitutional right that cannot be curtailed indefinitely without exceptional grounds, the Court observed that keeping the petitioner incarcerated for seventeen months without any witness testimony being recorded served no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, leaving the final determination of guilt to the Trial Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a DNA report automatically override a prompt medico-legal report for the purpose of deciding a bail application?
  • Can a delay in trial proceedings justify the grant of bail even in serious criminal cases?
  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR without plausible justification warrant the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmad vs The State and another2022 YLR 2210 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-31Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmad vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Of Interior2022 SCP 154, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1201, 2022 PLJ SC 332, 2022 PSC 1177, 2022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-10
  service lawnatural justicedouble jeopardydisciplinary proceedingsaudi alteram partemFrontier Constabularyright to fair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This service matter concerns the legality of disciplinary actions taken against a Frontier Constabulary personnel, who was transferred and subsequently reduced in seniority without a show-cause notice or formal inquiry. The core legal question was whether the department could impose multiple punishments for the same alleged offence without adhering to the principles of natural justice or the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court held that the impugned orders were illegal and set them aside. The Court ruled that disciplinary actions affecting an individual's rights must strictly comply with the principles of natural justice, which mandate that a delinquent be afforded a fair opportunity to be heard and contest allegations before being condemned. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that punishing an individual twice for the same offence violates the constitutional doctrine of double jeopardy. The key principle laid down is that statutory bodies must follow established procedural requirements, including the issuance of show-cause notices and the conduct of regular inquiries, to ensure that disciplinary actions are not arbitrary and that complete justice is served in accordance with the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Can a disciplinary authority impose multiple punishments for the same alleged offence?
  • Is a show-cause notice mandatory before imposing disciplinary punishment on a member of the Frontier Constabulary?
  • Does the doctrine of double jeopardy apply to departmental disciplinary proceedings?
  • Are disciplinary orders passed without providing an opportunity of personal hearing legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Sobia Nazir vs Province of Punjab, etc2022 [M] CLR 374 · Lahore High Court · 202-03-21
  maternity leavefundamental rightsfemale employeescontract employeeinternshipright to motherhoodconstitutional petitionPunjab Workers Welfare Fund
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner, an internee Senior Teacher (IT) at a Workers Welfare School, challenging the order of the respondent declining her application for 90 days of paid maternity leave based on the terms and conditions of the Internship/Retainership Policy. The core legal question was whether a female contract or internee employee, whose service contract or applicable policy does not explicitly provide for maternity leave or make general civil service leave rules applicable, can be denied maternity leave and associated pay, and whether such denial violates fundamental constitutional rights. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that maternity leave is a fundamental right of female employees regardless of whether it is expressly mentioned in their service contracts or specific departmental leave rules, as rooted in the constitutional protections for women, children, human dignity, and against forced labor. The court laid down the principle that all public and private entities are under an obligation to provide maternity leave with pay and job protection to female workers—including temporary, contract, and internee staff—to safeguard motherhood and ensure a just social order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a female employee appointed on an internship or contract basis is entitled to paid maternity leave when her service contract or policy is silent on the matter?
  • Does the denial of maternity leave to a female employee violate her fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are public sector departments and institutions under an obligation to provide maternity benefits and paid leave to temporary, ad hoc, or internee female workers?
  • Does forcing a pregnant woman to perform duties during advanced stages of pregnancy amount to forced labor prohibited by the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• SNGPL vs Gul Hakeem2022 PHC 316 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-24Read full judgment →
• Sme Bank Limited through Branch Manager vs Messrs Punjab Store through Proprietor and another2022 CLD 251 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-29Read full judgment →
• Sindh Irrigation And Drainage Authority vs Government Of Sindh and others2022 SCMR 595, 2022 PSC 876, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 745 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-24
  civil servantpublic servantSindh Service TribunalSection 12(2) CPCSindh Water Management Ordinance 2002SIDAjurisdictionmaster and servantdelegation of powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a consolidated judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellants' application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The private respondents claimed to be employees of the Irrigation Department of the Government of Sindh and sought salary release through the Service Tribunal. The appellants contended that the respondents were public servants employed by the Sindh Irrigation and Drainage Authority (SIDA), an autonomous corporate entity under the Sindh Water Management Ordinance, 2002, and not civil servants. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Service Tribunal's judgment. The Court held that SIDA is a distinct legal body corporate whose staff are public servants, not civil servants. Furthermore, appointments made by Executive Engineers on deputation without delegated statutory authority conferred no civil servant status. The Court also held that under Section 5 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the Service Tribunal exercises powers of a Civil Court and possesses full jurisdiction to decide Section 12(2) CPC applications regarding fraud or misrepresentation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of an autonomous statutory body corporate like SIDA qualify as civil servants under the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Can an official serving on deputation make valid appointments without express delegation of power from the governing statutory authority?
  • Is an appeal under Section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 maintainable by a person who is not a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindh Environmental Protection Agency through Authorized Officer vs Messrs Diamond Residency through Owner_Chief Executive Officer and another2022 CLD 626 · Sindh Environmental Protection Tribunal · 2021-12-22Read full judgment →
• Sindh Bar Council & 6 others vs Federation of Pakistan2022 SHC 450, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 318 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-10
  quo-warrantoNational Industrial Relations Commissioncasus omissusextension of tenurevires of ruleslocus standiArticle 25
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, including the Sindh Bar Council, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the vires of Rule 3(1) of the Chairman and Members (Qualifications) Rules, 2016, and the notification extending the term of the incumbent Chairman of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The core legal questions centered on whether Rule 3(1), which limits the qualification for Chairman to current or former Supreme Court Judges, was discriminatory under Article 25, whether an extension of tenure in the absence of an express statutory prohibition was lawful, and whether the petition was maintainable as a writ of quo-warranto. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that quo-warranto could not lie against an appointment made in strict compliance with the existing rules. The Court ruled that courts cannot supply a casus omissus to read non-extendability into a statute where the legislature omitted it. Furthermore, setting prescription criteria for public appointments remains within the domain of the competent rulemaking authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ of quo-warranto be issued to challenge an appointment made in full accordance with existing valid rules?
  • Can courts supply a casus omissus to read a restriction or non-extendability into statutory appointment provisions where none exists?
  • Does restricting the qualification for a statutory post to retired judges violate Article 25 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindh Agriculture University Tando Jam Through Vice Chancellor and another vs Province Of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 7 others2022 MLD 263 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-07Read full judgment →
• Sikandar vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 860 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-25
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtdelay in FIRocular accountmedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a fellow prisoner inside a hospital mental cell. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the ocular account, the impact of an inordinate delay in reporting the crime, and the benefit of doubt arising from inconsistencies in prosecution evidence. The Lahore High Court held that an unexplained two-day delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with unreliable eyewitness testimony and inconsistent testimonies of jail warders, rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The court acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt, laying down the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt on its own legs, and a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt is sufficient to acquit the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version?
  • Can medical evidence alone establish the identity of the assailant in a criminal trial?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt on its own legs without taking benefit from weaknesses in the defence?
  • What is the legal effect of a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution story?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Hayat vs The State and another2022 SCMR 198, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 99 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-01
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirygeneral roleforensic evidencecriminal justicemurder casebail adjudication
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenges an order of the Peshawar High Court denying post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a murder case registered under sections 302/324/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the forensic evidence. The Supreme Court observed that while the petitioner was accused of firing, the role ascribed was general, lacking specificity regarding the weapon used or the injuries caused. Crucially, the Forensic Science Laboratory report indicated that all 27 recovered empties were fired from a single weapon, creating ambiguity regarding the petitioner's individual culpability. Holding that the case fell within the purview of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court set aside the impugned order and granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where a general role is attributed to an accused and forensic evidence suggests the use of a single weapon, the case warrants further inquiry, entitling the accused to bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a general allegation of firing against multiple accused, where forensic evidence indicates the use of a single weapon, constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution fails to specify the weapon used or the specific injuries caused by the accused in a multi-accused murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Hayat Gondal, etc. vs Bashir Ahmad Qureshi, etc.2022 LHC 7475 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-17Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali Qureshi vs Chairman Nab and another2022 MLD 811 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-09Read full judgment →
• Sidra Alam and others vs State through Advocate-General and others2022 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 45 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-12-11Read full judgment →
• Shujabad Agro Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Federation of Pakistan2022 SHC 94, 2024 PLD Sindh 217 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-04Read full judgment →
• Show Time Cable And Datacom (Pvt.) Limited through Director vs Pakistan2022 CLC 254 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-28Read full judgment →
• Show Cause Notices Issued To Paint Manufacturers For Non-Compliance2022 CLD 89 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2021-10-13Read full judgment →
• Show Cause Notices Issued To Messrs Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority And Others_ In the matter of vs Not2022 CLD 790 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2022-03-17Read full judgment →
• State, Bagga, Manjhi vs Bagga, Manjhi, The State2022 LHC 2172 · Lahore High Court
  police encounterbenefit of the doubtdishonest improvementsindependent corroborationinjured witnessfair trialanti-terrorismweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal appeals and a capital sentence reference following a judgment by the anti-terrorism court convicting the appellants for murder, attempted murder, and related offenses stemming from a police encounter. The core legal questions involve the credibility of ocular testimony when co-accused have been acquitted, the legal effect of dishonest improvements by witnesses, the standard of investigation in police encounter cases, and the evidentiary value of recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that where a set of witnesses is disbelieved regarding certain co-accused, their testimony cannot be used to convict remaining accused without strong independent corroboration, and that police encounters require independent investigation rather than by the aggrieved party itself. The court established that dishonest material improvements by eye-witnesses render their testimony untrustworthy, and corroborative evidence like weapon recoveries cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable substantive evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, giving the appellants the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses disbelieved regarding some co-accused can be made the foundation of conviction for remaining accused without strong and independent corroboration?
  • Does an investigation conducted by the police in a case involving a police encounter satisfy the constitutional requirement of a fair trial and impartial investigation?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of recoveries of weapons of offense when the substantive ocular evidence has been disbelieved?
  • What is the evidentiary value of injuries on the person of a witness when the witness makes dishonest improvements during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Show Cause Notices Issued To Messrs Medialogic (Pvt.) Limited, Messrs2022 CLD 194 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2021-12-01Read full judgment →
• Show Cause Notices Issued to Del Electronics (Pvt.) Limited And Another_ In the matter of vs Not2022 CLD 670 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2022-11-03Read full judgment →
• Show Cause Notice Issued To Weight Loss Products Manufacturing2022 CLD 525 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2022-03-18Read full judgment →
• Show Cause Notice Issued To Messrs Qasim Iron Works For Deceptive2022 CLD 152 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2021-09-13Read full judgment →
• Show Cause Notice Issued To Messrs Nestle Pakistan Limited On Complaint2022 CLD 450 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2021-06-30Read full judgment →
• Show Cause Notice Issued To Messrs Hilal Foods (Pvt.) Limited On2022 CLD 240 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2021-08-26Read full judgment →
• Show Cause Notice Issued To Eight (8) Campuses Of Dar-E-Arqam2022 CLD 1343 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2019-08-08Read full judgment →
• Show Cause Notice Issued To Defence Housing Authority2022 CLD 31 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2021-06-03Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Ali Sundrani vs The State2022 SHC 446 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-03
  illegal arms possessionreasonable doubtsafe custody of weaponpolice witness corroborationcriminal appealacquittalSindh Arms Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, for the alleged possession of an unlicensed pistol. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the recovery and chain of custody of the weapon. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, citing the failure to associate independent witnesses despite their availability, the lack of evidence regarding the safe custody and transmission of the weapon to the Ballistic Expert, and unexplained overwriting in the official diary (Roznamcha). The Court emphasized that when a case rests solely on police testimony, independent corroboration is necessary to ensure reliability. The Court reaffirmed the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to associate independent witnesses during a recovery create reasonable doubt?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody and transmission of a recovered weapon to the Ballistic Expert?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of police officials without independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal effect of a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shirmati Jaami vs The State2022 SHC 144 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-18
  extra-judicial confessioncircumstantial evidenceinadmissible evidencecriminal appealburden of proofreasonable doubtpolice confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for murder and destruction of evidence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a conviction could be sustained based solely on an alleged extra-judicial confession made to police officials in the absence of ocular or corroborating circumstantial evidence. The High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The court emphasized that under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, any confession made to a police officer is inadmissible and carries no evidentiary value. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, as there was no recovery of incriminating articles or credible evidence linking the appellants to the crime. The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies heavily on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted, establishing the principle that extra-judicial confessions to police are legally worthless and cannot form the basis of a criminal conviction without independent, corroborating evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confession made to a police officer admissible as evidence against an accused person?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession made to police officials in the absence of corroborating evidence?
  • What are the requirements for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shezan Services (Private) Limited vs Shezan Bakers and Confectioners2022 SCMR 1363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-09
  trademark registrationgoodwilldeceptive similarityidentical trademarkdistinctivenessadverse presumptionintellectual property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over the registration of the trademark 'Shezan' in class 29. The respondent, a private limited company, sought registration of the mark based on a 1975 agreement under which its alleged predecessor purchased the goodwill of certain 'Shezan' restaurants and a bakery in Lahore. The appellant, who held seventy-five registered 'Shezan' word and label marks dating back to 1958, opposed the application. The Registrar of Trade Marks and the High Court of Sindh both allowed the registration with territorial limitations, interpreting the agreement as a transfer of trademark rights. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reversed these decisions, holding that the 1975 agreement was for the sale of specific businesses and did not assign or transfer the trademark. The Court ruled that because the respondent was not the proprietor of the mark, and the mark lacked distinctiveness and was identical to the appellant's subsisting registrations, its registration would cause public confusion and violate statutory prohibitions against registering identical or deceptive marks.

  Questions settled

  • Does the sale of a business's goodwill automatically transfer or assign the ownership of its registered trademarks to the buyer in the absence of an express assignment clause?
  • Can a trademark be registered by a subsequent applicant if it is identical to an existing registered trademark in the same class and lacks distinctiveness?
  • Whether an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 can be drawn against a party who fails to produce corporate and partnership documents to prove its status as a successor-in-interest?
  Read full judgment →