Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Shezan Services (Private) Limited vs Shezan Bakers & Confectioners2022 SCP 132, 2022 CLD 970 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil 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, which was opposed by the appellant, who held seventy-five registered 'Shezan' trademarks dating back to 1958. The Registrar of Trade Marks and the High Court of Sindh had allowed the respondent's application, relying on a 1975 agreement that sold the goodwill of certain Lahore-based restaurants and a bakery to the respondent's alleged predecessor. The Supreme Court of Pakistan analyzed the 1975 agreement and the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. The Court held that the agreement merely permitted the localized operation of specific businesses and did not assign or transfer the proprietary trademark rights. Furthermore, the respondent's proposed mark lacked the requisite distinctiveness under Section 6, and registering an identical mark in the same class would cause public deception and confusion, violating Sections 8(a) and 10(1) of the Act. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the concurrent findings.
Questions settled- Does the sale of the goodwill of a localized business automatically transfer or assign the ownership of a registered trademark associated with it?
- Can a trademark be registered by a non-proprietor if it lacks distinctiveness and is identical to subsisting registered trademarks in the same class?
- Whether an agreement restricting the use of a business name to a specific territory permits the registration of that name as a trademark by the licensee?
- What is the legal effect of failing to produce corporate succession documents when directed by the Court during trademark proceedings?
- Sherzaman, Ex-Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Directorate of Excise2022 KLR Labour & Service Cases 82 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shereen Zada Khan vs The State, etc2022 PSC (Crl.) 314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a criminal appeal filed by Shereen Zada Khan against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had partly accepted his appeal, set aside his death sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and instead convicted him under Section 9(b) of the same Act, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine, while maintaining his conviction under Section 17. The core legal question involved whether the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced under Section 9(b) after the destruction of the case property without notice led to the setting aside of his initial Section 9(c) conviction, and whether the sentence warranted any further reduction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appeal was without merit and dismissed it, noting that the appellant had already served out his entire sentence and the impugned judgment of the High Court was not open to exception. The key principle laid down is that where a conviction remains in the field and the appellant has already served the substantive sentence, no purpose is served by further reducing the sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the conviction under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is sustainable when the case property was destroyed without notice to the accused?
- Does any purpose lie in reducing a sentence where the appellant has already served out his entire substantive sentence?
- Can a conviction and sentence under Section 17 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be maintained if it was not questioned during arguments before the appellate court?
- Sher Zaman vs Syed Abdul Sadiq and 2 others2022 YLR 1276 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-23Read full judgment →
- Sher Wali vs The State2022 PHC 112 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-11Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs Bibi Safia and 4 others2022 CLC 1987 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
- Sher Hassan and others vs Gul Hassan Khan and others2022 SCP 36, 2022 SCMR 1360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the Peshawar High Court's judgment that dismissed the petitioners' criminal revision and upheld orders striking down their right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses (PWs 3-5) in a complaint under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether an accused in a criminal or quasi-criminal trial can be deprived of the fundamental right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses due to non-appearance or delays caused by counsel. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the right to cross-examine witnesses is an essential attribute of a fair trial and due process, which cannot be arbitrarily denied. The Court laid down the principle that the concept of striking down the right of cross-examination is alien to criminal jurisprudence, and depriving an accused of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses violates the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution.
Questions settled- Whether an accused in a criminal trial can be deprived of the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses?
- Is the concept of striking down a party's right of cross-examination applicable in criminal jurisprudence?
- Does depriving an accused of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses violate the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Sher Dil and another vs The State2022 YLR 1426 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application concerns two applicants, Sher Dil and Shah Jehan, charged under Sections 337-L(2), 336, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly assaulting the complainant, the mother of the first applicant, over a property dispute. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations, the medical evidence, and the minority status of one applicant. The Court held that the first applicant, Sher Dil, was not entitled to bail, as the motive for the alleged assault—depriving his mother of her legal property share—was specifically attributed to him. Conversely, the Court granted bail to the second applicant, Shah Jehan, finding his case distinguishable due to his minority, supported by a birth certificate, which suggested he acted under his father's influence. The Court emphasized that while bail is a matter of judicial discretion, the gravity of the offense, particularly involving violence against parents, warrants distinct treatment. The Court further clarified that the trial court retains the authority to cancel bail if the minor applicant absconds.
Questions settled- Is a minor accused entitled to bail if the court finds they acted under the influence of an adult co-accused?
- Does a trial court have the authority to cancel bail without reference to the High Court if the accused becomes an absconder?
- Can bail be denied to an accused when the motive for the alleged crime is specifically attributed to them?
- Sher Daraz Khan son of Nawaz Khan, And four others, residents of erstwhile2022 PHC 98 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-31Read full judgment →
- Sher Baz alias Shahbaz vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 1214 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition was filed against an order passed by the Sessions Judge (Special Judge) ATC, Sahiwal, which allowed the prosecution's application to re-summon a Magistrate (PW-19) for further examination. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted within its jurisdiction under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in permitting the re-summoning of a witness to clarify the date on an application for an identification parade, or whether this constituted an impermissible attempt by the prosecution to fill a lacuna in its case. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court's order was lawful. The Court affirmed that the power under Section 540 is plenary, allowing the court to summon or recall any witness at any stage if essential for a just decision. It clarified that an oversight or mistake by the prosecution during trial does not equate to an irreparable 'lacuna' in the prosecution's case, and the primary function of a criminal court is the administration of justice rather than penalizing procedural errors.
Questions settled- Does the power of a court under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall a witness extend to correcting oversights made by the prosecution?
- Is an oversight by the prosecution during a trial equivalent to an irreparable lacuna in the prosecution's case?
- Can a trial court exercise its power to re-summon a witness if the prosecution discovers a need for clarification at a belated stage?
- Sher Baz alias Shahbaz vs State, etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 102 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge (Special Judge) ATC, Sahiwal, which allowed the prosecution's application to re-summon a Magistrate (PW-19) for further examination. The petitioner argued that this action improperly allowed the prosecution to fill a lacuna in its case. The Lahore High Court examined the scope of Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which grants courts plenary power to summon or recall any witness at any stage of proceedings if their evidence is essential for a just decision. The Court held that an oversight or mistake by the prosecution during trial does not constitute an irreparable 'lacuna'—which refers to an inherent weakness in the prosecution's case—but is rather a correctable error. The Court emphasized that the primary function of a criminal court is the administration of justice, not merely assessing the performance of parties. Consequently, the Court upheld the trial court's order, finding that recalling the witness was necessary for a just decision and would not prejudice the accused.
Questions settled- Does the re-summoning of a witness to correct an oversight by the prosecution constitute filling a lacuna?
- What is the scope of a trial court's power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall a witness?
- Is an oversight committed by a public prosecutor during a trial considered an irreparable lacuna in the prosecution's case?
- Sher Bahadar vs The State and another2022 PHC 534 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-18Read full judgment →
- Sher Ali vs Mst. Hafsa and others2022 PHC 420 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-17Read full judgment →
- Sher Ali vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab and seven others2022 LHC 4681 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-22Read full judgment →
- Sher Afzal vs The State and another2022 SCMR 186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition by leave to appeal arising from an order of the Lahore High Court declining post-arrest bail to the petitioner under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was assigned a proverbial lalkara and the role of kicking the deceased persons, and whose co-accused with a similar allegation had been granted pre-arrest bail, was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry and consistency. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the case fell within the scope of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for further inquiry, particularly given the prior disassociation of the petitioner from the main co-accused via a newspaper proclamation and the principle of consistency regarding co-accused granted bail. The Court laid down the principle that liberty is a precious right and a favourite child of law, and that where the nature of a lalkara requires determination at trial and a co-accused with similar role is granted bail, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused assigned a proverbial lalkara and a role of kicking dead bodies is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused with a similar role entitle another co-accused to bail on the plea of consistency?
- Can a petitioner be denied post-arrest bail when the question of whether a lalkara was commanding or proverbial requires determination after recording evidence at trial?
- Sher Afzal Khan vs Noor Islam and others2022 PHC 258, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 178 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-27Read full judgment →
- Shell Pakistan Limited through Retail Operations Manager and Special2022 CLC 941, 2022 [M] CLR 778, 2022 PCTLR 620 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-21Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Muhammad Tariq vs M/s Premium Developers2022 LHC 1901 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-11Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Imran Ahmed vs The Director General K.D.A. and another2022 CLC 682 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-01Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Azfar Amin vs Chaudhary Asif Ali and 4 others2022 PLD Lahore 92 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-06Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Arsalan vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1308 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 302(b) and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, handed down by the trial court. The core legal question involves whether a conviction can be sustained when material recovery witnesses and case property are not produced, and when mandatory procedures under sections 342 and 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are violated by the trial court. The Balochistan High Court held that the trial court committed grave illegality by failing to examine key recovery witnesses, omitting to put crucial incriminating pieces of evidence to the accused during his examination under section 342, and neglecting to invoke its powers under section 540 to ensure a just decision. The ratio laid down is that a trial court cannot act as a silent spectator and must ensure the examination of essential witnesses and proper adherence to procedural safeguards to guarantee a fair trial. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the conviction and remanded the matter back to the trial court for a fresh decision after recording the necessary evidence.
Questions settled- Can incriminating evidence not put to an accused during his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used for his conviction?
- What is the scope and mandatory nature of a trial court's power to summon material witnesses under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether an appellate court can set aside a conviction and remand a criminal case for retrial upon noting severe procedural lapses and failure to examine key recovery witnesses?
- Does the omission to specify points for determination as required by section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a trial court judgment?
- Sheikh Abdul Khaliq and 8 others vs Government Of Pakistan, Board Of Trustees, through Secretary Establishment, Islamabad and 4 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 43 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by retired Federal Government employees seeking payment of Group Insurance sums upon their retirement, relying on Section 17(5) of the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969. The petitioners argued they were entitled to these funds, citing discriminatory treatment compared to provincial employees. The core legal question was whether retired federal employees are entitled to claim Group Insurance benefits during their lifetime, similar to death benefits, and whether the Insurance Fund could be utilized for their benefit. The Court held that Group Insurance is a form of compensation accruing only upon an employee's death, as stipulated in Section 15 of the Act of 1969, and is not an inheritable benefit or 'Tarka'. Consequently, the claim for payment of insurance sums upon retirement was dismissed as untenable. However, regarding the utilization of surplus funds under Section 17(5), the Court directed the Board to examine the petitioners' grievances individually to determine if the remaining funds could be applied for the benefit of retired employees, as permitted by the statute.
Questions settled- Are retired federal employees entitled to claim Group Insurance benefits during their lifetime under the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act 1969?
- Does the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act 1969 classify Group Insurance as an inheritable benefit or 'Tarka'?
- Can surplus amounts in the Federal Employees Insurance Fund be utilized for the benefit of retired employees under Section 17(5) of the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act 1969?
- Sheikh Abdul Aziz vs The State2022 MLD 1845 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of arson and criminal intimidation. The core legal questions addressed were whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a pre-arrest bail application directly, bypassing the Sessions Court, and whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for pre-arrest bail, specifically the requirements of mala fide and the absence of incriminating material. The Court held that while parties should generally approach the Sessions Court first, the High Court possesses concurrent jurisdiction that may be invoked in compelling circumstances. Finding that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of 20 hours, that the applicant had previously lodged a cross-FIR against the complainants, and that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute, the Court confirmed the bail. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief intended to protect against malicious prosecution, and where a case appears to be a counterblast or lacks sufficient incriminating material, bail should be granted.
Questions settled- Can an accused person approach the High Court directly for pre-arrest bail without first moving the Sessions Court?
- Does the registration of a cross-FIR by the accused against the complainant party support a claim of mala fide in a bail application?
- Is an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR a relevant factor for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Does the fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, entitle an accused to bail?
- Shehzada Khan son of Khan Zada, r/o Wazir Dand Shah Kas Jamrud,2022 PHC 28 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shehzad Akhtar vs Muhammad Saleem Shad Qureshi, etc.2022 LHC 7326 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-07Read full judgment →
- Shehnaz Akhtar and another vs Mst. Zeenat Tariq and others2022 PLD Islamabad 360 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-07-26Read full judgment →
- Shehbaz Ahmed vs The State and another2022 IHC 76 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision and writ petition arose from a composite judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-East, Islamabad, which upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner sought acquittal, while the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the essential ingredients of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the sentence should be enhanced. The High Court observed that the prosecution successfully proved the four essential ingredients of the offence: the cheque was duly issued, with dishonest intent, for repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation, and was dishonoured on presentation. The Court held that the petitioner issued the cheque knowing his account had insufficient funds, establishing dishonest intent under Section 24 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Regarding enhancement, the Court ruled that sentencing is a discretionary matter based on the facts of each case. Consequently, both the revision petition and the writ petition were dismissed.
Questions settled- What are the essential pre-requisites required to attract the provisions of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- How is 'dishonestly' defined and applied under Section 24 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the context of issuing a cheque with insufficient funds?
- Does Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 stipulate a specific time period within which a holder must present a cheque to the bank for encashment?
- Under what circumstances can an appellate or revisional court decline to enhance a sentence awarded by a trial court for an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Sheeraz Khan and another vs Deputy Commissioner, Chakwal and 3 others2022 MLD 1267 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-17Read full judgment →
- Shazia Afzal vs Justice Of Peace and 2 others2022 PLJ Lahore 61 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-06Read full judgment →
- Shaza Tehseen vs Tehseen Butt, etc2022 PLJ Islamabad 129 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-29Read full judgment →
- Shaza Tehseen vs Tehseen Butt and others2022 CLC 1521 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-29Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Hussain vs The State2022 SCMR 1358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the Lahore High Court’s judgment maintaining the appellant's conviction for the homicide of his wife. The prosecution alleged that the appellant strangulated the deceased with a dupatta and wire inside his house. The core legal questions pertained to whether the husband satisfactorily discharged his burden under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and whether the ocular testimony was credible when evaluated against medical evidence and the conduct of witnesses. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution's case was full of doubts. The Court observed that although Article 122 casts a heavy onus on a husband regarding a wife's homicidal death in his house, the appellant's explanation was plausible when weighed against the prosecution's glaring lacunas. Specifically, the father of the deceased was withheld from the witness box, the medical evidence contradicted the alleged strangulation mechanism due to the absence of a ligature mark, the witnesses implausibly failed to intervene, and an identically placed co-accused had already been acquitted.
Questions settled- Does Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 cast a heavy onus on a husband to explain the homicidal death of his wife occurring inside his house?
- Can an accused husband be acquitted under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 if his explanation is plausible and the prosecution case is contradicted by medical evidence and the unexplained absence of a key witness?
- Whether the failure of eye-witnesses to intervene to rescue a victim being assaulted in their plain view, combined with a conflict between ocular account and autopsy findings, renders the ocular testimony doubtful?
- Shaukat Hussain vs StatePLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the appellant's conviction for the homicide of his wife. The prosecution alleged the appellant strangulated his wife, witnessed by the complainant and others. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the inconsistencies between the ocular account and medical evidence, and the absence of the deceased's father as a witness. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with doubts. The Court noted that while Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, places a heavy onus on a husband to explain a wife's death in their home, the appellant's explanation, when weighed against the evidence, created reasonable doubt. Specifically, the autopsy report lacked evidence of ligature marks consistent with strangulation, and the failure of four witnesses to intervene during the alleged assault was improbable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to establish the manner of death as alleged.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the deceased's father as a witness create a reasonable doubt in a murder case?
- Can a conviction for strangulation be sustained when the autopsy report shows no ligature marks?
- What is the effect of the acquittal of a co-accused on the prosecution's case against the remaining appellant?
- How does the burden of proof under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 apply to the death of a wife within the matrimonial home?
- Shaukat Hussain and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 448 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the trial court's judgment convicting the appellants for the double murder of two individuals. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether the death sentence was appropriate given the evidentiary record. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular evidence, corroborated by medical testimony, was sufficient to prove the appellants' guilt, despite minor discrepancies and the failure to prove motive or recovery of weapons. The Court affirmed the convictions under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. However, the Court determined that the failure to establish motive and the unreliability of the recovery evidence acted as mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the Court upheld the convictions but commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment, extending the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that while ocular evidence may suffice for conviction, the failure to prove motive and recovery evidence entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt regarding the quantum of sentence.
Questions settled- Does the failure to prove motive and recovery of weapons entitle an accused to a reduction in sentence from death to life imprisonment?
- Is ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder when recovery evidence is disbelieved?
- Can an appellate court commute a death sentence to life imprisonment while maintaining the conviction for murder?
- Sharjeel Inam Memon vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman2022 PCRLJ 1462 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a Constitution Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking to restrain the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) from arresting him in undisclosed inquiries and to compel the disclosure of all pending investigations against him. During the proceedings, NAB disclosed the particulars of eight inquiries and references. The Court held that since the primary relief of disclosure had been satisfied, the petition had become infructuous regarding that prayer. Regarding the request for protection against arrest, the Court declined to interfere, noting that the petitioner possessed an adequate alternate remedy to seek pre-arrest bail under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The Court affirmed the principle that the judiciary should not interfere with the investigative functions of statutory bodies like NAB, as investigation remains the exclusive domain of the investigating agency, provided it is not tainted by mala fide intent. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without granting further injunctive relief.
Questions settled- Can the High Court under Article 199 interfere with the investigative functions of the National Accountability Bureau?
- Is a petition seeking disclosure of inquiries infructuous once the National Accountability Bureau has provided the requested details?
- Does the existence of an alternate remedy under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, bar the invocation of Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Sharafuddin alias Sharfoo and another vs The State2022 YLR 324 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b), P.P.C., for the murder of the deceased over a land dispute. The core legal question involved whether the prosecution successfully proved its case through ocular testimony, medical evidence, and corroborative material despite alleged contradictions and the relationship of the eye-witnesses to the deceased. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution established its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the natural eye-witnesses remained consistent, their presence at the broad-daylight incident was plausible, and their testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and recoveries. The court laid down the principle that the testimony of related or blood-relative witnesses cannot be discarded merely due to their relationship in the absence of a proven motive for false implication, and that minor discrepancies arising from the lapse of time do not undermine an otherwise confidence-inspiring prosecution case.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of blood relatives of a deceased can be discredited solely on the ground of their relationship without establishing a motive for false implication?
- Does the presence of minor discrepancies and variations in the statements of eyewitnesses warrant the outright rejection of the prosecution case?
- Whether medical evidence contradicting minor details of the ocular account is sufficient to discard direct eyewitness testimony that is otherwise natural and confidence-inspiring?
- Is corroborative evidence mandatory when the direct eyewitness testimony is found to be unimpeachable and truthful?
- Sharaf-Ud-Din vs Abdul Wadood and 3 others2022 CLC 1282 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-13Read full judgment →
- Shan Muhammad alias Shany vs Said Mashal2022 SCP 94, 2022 SCMR 1340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning a sale mutation. The core legal questions were whether the failure to explicitly mention the date of the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad in the plaint renders the suit liable to dismissal, and whether the appellant successfully proved the delivery of physical possession prior to the mutation's attestation to establish the suit as time-barred. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent's failure to mention the date of the notice in the plaint was not fatal to the case, as the notice was on record, the appellant failed to raise this specific objection in the written statement or lower courts, and the evidence established substantial compliance with the law. Furthermore, the Court held that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as revenue records, to substantiate the claim of prior possession. The key principle laid down is that a pre-emptor cannot be non-suited for a bona fide omission of non-mentioning the date of notice in the plaint when the notice is otherwise available on the record and the deficiency was not pleaded by the defendant.
Questions settled- Does the failure to mention the date of the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad in the plaint automatically render a pre-emption suit liable to dismissal?
- Can a party raise a factual plea for the first time in the Supreme Court that was not pleaded in the written statement or raised in the lower courts?
- Is a mere statement by a party regarding the delivery of possession sufficient evidence to establish the date of possession in a pre-emption case?
- Shamsher Ahmad vs The State2022 SCP 236, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 951, 2022 SCMR 1931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed a petition against the conviction of Shamsher Ahmad for murder under Section 302(b) PPC. The petitioner was originally sentenced to death by the Trial Court, which was later commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court. The prosecution's case rested on ocular testimony from the deceased's father and cousin, supported by medical evidence. The defense argued that the night-time occurrence, delay in FIR, and lack of independent witnesses invalidated the conviction. The Supreme Court held that the ocular account was consistent and reliable, noting that the parties were related and thus mistaken identity was improbable. The Court clarified that minor discrepancies in testimony do not vitiate a case if the core narrative remains trustworthy. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that while the failure to prove motive and the lack of forensic matching for the recovered weapon justified the reduction of the sentence from death to life imprisonment, the conviction itself was legally sound. Consequently, the petitions for acquittal and enhancement of sentence were both dismissed.
- Shamshad Ali vs Muhammad Sharif etc2022 PLJ Lahore 354 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-24Read full judgment →
- Shamshad Alam vs Ghazanfarullah Khan2022 PHC 440 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
- Shameem Bibi vs The State etc2022 SCP 276, 2022 SCMR 2077 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's order denying post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was implicated in a murder case under Sections 394/302/411/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on a supplementary statement alleging abetment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution provided sufficient material to justify continued incarceration given the lack of direct evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy, as the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 107 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860—instigation, engagement, and intentional aid—were missing. Furthermore, the Court determined that Call Data Records, in isolation and without proof of ownership, do not constitute conclusive evidence of guilt. Emphasizing that liberty is a precious constitutional right and noting that the investigation was complete, the Court granted bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, ruling that the petitioner’s guilt warranted further inquiry by the Trial Court rather than pre-trial detention.
Questions settled- Is a Call Data Record, in isolation, sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of an accused in a criminal case?
- What are the essential ingredients required to establish the offense of abetment under Section 107 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the submission of a challan and the completion of investigation influence the court's decision to grant bail?
- Under what circumstances does a case fall within the purview of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Shakir Ali vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2022 PHC 204, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1387 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a direction against the respondents to appoint him to a post pursuant to the quota reserved for civil servants retired on medical grounds under Rule 10(4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989. The petitioner's wife had been permanently invalidated and retired on medical grounds after serving as a Female Welfare Assistant. The core legal question was whether a husband/widower is entitled to be appointed under Rule 10(4) of the 1989 Rules upon the medical invalidation or death of his civil servant wife. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Rule 10(4) explicitly limits benefit eligibility to a child or the widow/wife of a civil servant. The Court held that the rules contain no scope for appointing a husband/widower under the medical invalidation or deceased employee quota.
Questions settled- Is a husband or widower entitled to employment under Rule 10(4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989 when his civil servant wife retires on medical grounds or dies during service?
- Can a court extend the scope of a benefit provided under statutory service rules to categories of persons not explicitly included in the rules?
- Shakila Appa (Late) vs Nadeem Ghani and others2022 CLC 1146 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-15Read full judgment →
- Shakil Muhammad vs Vice Chancellor, University of Malakand at2022 PHC 416 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-19Read full judgment →
- Shakeela Naz vs Mst. Nazir Begum through L.Rs. and others2022 YLR 1118 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-13Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Ahmed.,Abdul Rasheed.,Shaukat Ali and Irfan vs The State2022 SHC 534 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following their arrest and the recovery of a significant quantity of charas. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution proved the recovery beyond reasonable doubt, whether the chain of custody was maintained, and whether the conviction is sustainable given the defense's claims of false implication and procedural irregularities, including the lack of independent witnesses. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case through consistent, reliable testimony from official witnesses, whose evidence remained unshaken during cross-examination. The Court affirmed that police officials are competent witnesses and that the failure to associate private persons as mashirs does not invalidate the recovery, particularly given the statutory exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in narcotics cases. The Court further held that the chain of custody was unbroken and the chemical examiner's report confirmed the nature of the contraband. The key principle laid down is that while representative sampling is essential for conviction, technical procedural defects do not warrant acquittal where the prosecution's evidence is otherwise robust and confidence-inspiring.
Questions settled- Can a police officer serve as both the complainant and the investigating officer in a narcotics case?
- Does the failure to associate private witnesses (mashirs) invalidate a recovery under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Is the testing of representative samples drawn from each packet sufficient to prove the nature of the entire recovered narcotic quantity?
- Does the destruction of the bulk of the recovered narcotic property before trial vitiate the conviction if samples were properly tested?
- Shakeel Ahmed Sahito vs The State2022 MLD 1004 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Shakeel Ahmed Sahito, who was booked for offences under Sections 489-F and 506/2 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dishonour of a cheque issued for Rs. 1,700,000 and subsequent criminal intimidation. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of issuing a dishonest cheque and the resulting financial impact. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, finding prima facie evidence of dishonesty in the issuance of the cheque, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The Court emphasized that the issuance of a cheque with dishonest intention, specifically for the repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation, constitutes an offence under Section 489-F. It further observed that such financial misconduct erodes public trust and constitutes a serious harm to the complainant. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, recalled the interim pre-arrest bail, and ordered the applicant to be taken into custody.
Questions settled- What are the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the issuance of a cheque with the knowledge of insufficient funds establish a prima facie case of dishonest intention for the purpose of bail?
- Should a court engage in a deeper appreciation of evidence when deciding a bail application?
- Shakeel Ahmad vs The State2022 PHC 388 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of narcotics. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant credibility issues of the investigation officer and the absence of corroborative evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with doubts and inconsistencies, including the dismissal of the complainant/investigation officer for corruption, the failure to produce essential police station daily diaries, and the omission of register entries (Register 19 and 21) to prove the safe custody of the contraband. The Court emphasized that when the credibility of prosecution witnesses is dubious, independent corroboration is mandatory. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish the recovery in the manner alleged. The key principle laid down is that in criminal cases, the prosecution must provide confidence-inspiring evidence; where material evidence is withheld or witnesses lack credibility, the benefit of the doubt must accrue to the accused as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of the prosecution to produce police daily diaries regarding the departure and arrival of the raiding team creates a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case?
- Does the dismissal of an investigation officer for corruption and illegal gratification render his testimony unreliable without strong independent corroboration?
- Can an adverse inference be drawn under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when the prosecution abandons a material witness to the recovery memo?
- Is the non-production of Register 19 and Register 21 sufficient to create doubt regarding the safe custody of recovered narcotics?
- Shaista Norrrn Sajid vs M/s Qatar Airways International, Etc2022 LHC 4180 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-09Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Muhammad Tariq vs Messrs Premium Developers through C.E.O.2022 YLR 1867 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-11Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Muhammad Sabir vs M/s K.K. Builders (Pvt) Limited and others2022 SHC 134, 2024 CLC 347 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-31Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Khalid Safdar vs Ali Hussain & Others2022 SHC 434 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-29Read full judgment →
- Shahzeb vs The State, etc2022 LHC 4638, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1524 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to life imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved the safe custody and transmission of the recovered contraband and samples, the validity of the chemical examiner's report, and material contradictions in prosecution evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of safe custody and safe transmission of the case property and samples to the testing laboratory, that the chemical examiner's report lacked mandatory test protocols and analysis details rendering it unreliable, and that glaring contradictions in the testimonies of police witnesses created serious doubts. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant on the principle that the benefit of a single reasonable doubt in a criminal case must be extended to the accused as of right, particularly under stringent penal statutes requiring a stricter standard of proof.
Questions settled- Does a failure by the prosecution to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotic samples to the chemical examiner vitiate the conviction?
- Is a chemical examiner's report lacking mandatory test protocols and individual test results legally admissible to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Can material contradictions between the time of recording the complaint and the duration of the weighing process create a fatal dent in the prosecution's case?
- What is the effect of the prosecution giving up a material witness who carried the initial complaint to the police station?
- Shahzaib vs The State2022 MLD 950 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-30Read full judgment →
- Shahzada Rimmal Jamil vs The Chairman, CDA, etc2022 IHC 102 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-25Read full judgment →
- Shahzada Mughal, Senior Clerk B-14, Directorate of Zakat and Ushr, Muzaffarabad vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 331 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two consolidated petitions for leave to appeal arising from a High Court order that dismissed a writ petition and a review petition regarding the appointment of an Administrative Officer (B-16) in the Zakat and Ushr Department. The core legal questions involve whether service matters relating to promotion can be agitated in writ jurisdiction and the extent of judicial review over the recommendations of a Selection Board. The Supreme Court held that matters concerning the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, such as promotion, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court under writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court held that assessment of suitability and fitness for promotion is the sole prerogative of expert bodies like the Selection Board, and courts will not substitute their own views absent perversity or mala fides. Consequently, the petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant can agitate matters relating to promotion through a writ petition before the High Court?
- Does the Service Tribunal possess exclusive jurisdiction over matters concerning the terms and conditions of civil servants?
- Can a court substitute its own view for the assessment of suitability and fitness made by a Selection Board?
- Shahzada Mughal, Senior Clerk B-14, Directorate of Zakat and Ushr, Muzaffarabad vs Azad Government of the Slate of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secritary, Muzaffarabad2022 PSC 1130 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal directed against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition and a subsequent review petition concerning the appointment of an Administrative Officer (B-16) in the Zakat and Ushr Department. The core legal questions relate to the maintainability of a writ petition by civil servants regarding service matters such as promotion, and the scope of judicial review over recommendations made by a Selection Board. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that matters concerning the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, including promotion, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under the relevant statutory framework, thereby barring writ petitions under constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court held that assessment of fitness and suitability for promotion is the exclusive domain of expert selection bodies and courts will not substitute their own views unless perversity or illegality is established. Consequently, the petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition is maintainable by a civil servant in relation to matters connected with the terms and conditions of service, such as promotion, where the Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction?
- Can a court substitute its own view for the assessment and evaluation of a candidate's fitness for promotion made by an expert Selection Board?
- Does a civil servant who has already been promoted to a post in grade BPS-16 retain the right to claim another post carrying an equal grade against a specific departmental quota?
- Shahzada Mian Gul vs The State & others2022 PHC 570 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
- Shahzada Hassan and 4 others vs Mst. Gul Adam2022 MLD 1595 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-10-25Read full judgment →
- Shahzad vs Ex-officio Justice of Peace etc2022 LHC 4905 · 0 · 2022-03-30Read full judgment →
- Shahzad Sher Ali & others vs National Insurance Company Limited2022 SHC 346 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shahrukh Latif vs Govt. of Punjab, etc.2022 LHC 6312, 2022 [M] CLR 1487 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-09Read full judgment →
- Shahray Khan (decd.) through LRs etc vs Qadir Bakhsh (decd.) through LRs2022 SCP 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment upholding concurrent findings regarding the inheritance of agricultural land. The core legal questions concerned the validity of an alienation of property by a widow holding a life estate and the correct determination of the deceased's legal heirs. The Supreme Court held that the widow, as a limited owner, lacked the legal authority to alienate the property to her relatives, and the assertion that such alienation was necessary to satisfy a debt remained unsubstantiated. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which determined that the estate devolved upon the widow, mother, and sisters of the deceased, thereby excluding the collateral and the widow's relatives. The Court reiterated the principle that it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be against the evidence, perverse, or involve a grave miscarriage of justice. Finding no misreading of evidence or legal defect, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a widow holding a life estate validly alienate the property to third parties?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts?
- Does the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 affect the status of a limited owner?
- Are sisters of a deceased person entitled to inherit the estate if the deceased left a widow and mother?
- Shahnawaz S/o Abdul Ghafoor vs The State2022 SHC 500, 2024 PCRLJ 1678 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 6 and 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, arising from the alleged recovery of 50 kilograms of charas from a rickshaw. The core legal questions involve the reliability of official witnesses, the absence of independent public mashirs, the compliance with safe custody rules, and the sufficiency of drawing representative samples for chemical analysis. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent and confidence-inspiring testimony of official witnesses, notwithstanding the absence of private mashirs. The Court reaffirmed that drawing representative samples from each separate unit and testing them fulfills the legal requirement for establishing the narcotic nature of the entire recovered bulk, in alignment with settled jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of police and anti-narcotics officials can be relied upon for conviction in narcotics cases in the absence of independent public witnesses?
- Does the failure to associate private persons as mashirs vitiate recovery proceedings under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Whether testing representative samples drawn from each physically separate unit satisfies the legal requirement for establishing the narcotic character of the entire bulk?
- Can a police officer legally act as both the complainant and the investigating officer in a criminal case?
- Shahnawaz and others vs Province Of Sindh and others2022 CLC 692 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-16Read full judgment →
- Shahimah Sayeed vs Base Commander, Paf and 3 others2022 PLD Sindh 186 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-26Read full judgment →
- Shahida Parveen vs Province of Punjab & others2022 LHC 6828 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
- Shahid Wazeer vs Additional District Judge, etc2022 LHC 7798 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-06Read full judgment →
- Shahid Rasool vs Government Of Punjab through Secretary Home2022 PLJ Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-25Read full judgment →
- Shahid Murad; and Shah Khalid sons of Wazir Zada, Residents of Gumbat2022 PHC 22 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shahid Mehmood, etc vs District Collector/Land Acquisition Collector, etc2022 LHC 7991 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-17Read full judgment →
- Shahid Hussain Qureshi vs Province Of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 4 others2022 PLD Sindh 260 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-25Read full judgment →
- Shahid Habib vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2022 IHC 62 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-14Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2022 LHC 6542, 2022 [M] CLR 1556 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-20Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz alias Gillu vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1451 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-11Read full judgment →
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 murder. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of delayed FIR registration, delayed post-mortem examination, credibility of closely related and inimical eye-witnesses, consistency between ocular and medical evidence, and the evidentiary value of motive, weapon recovery, and absconding. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to fatal discrepancies, including delayed reporting, unconvincing ocular testimony contradicted by medical evidence where an exit wound was attributed as a firearm entry, lack of independent corroboration after co-accused acquittal, and unproven motive. The court established that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right, thereby setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant.
Questions settled- Does a noticeable delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem examination cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version?
- Can ocular testimony be relied upon when the injury attributed to the accused is medically established as an exit wound rather than an entry wound?
- Whether prosecution witnesses disbelieved with respect to an acquitted co-accused can be relied upon against a remaining accused without independent and unimpeachable corroboration?
- Is mere absconding of an accused sufficient by itself to prove guilt or remedy defects in the prosecution case?
- Shah Zaman vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 IHC 158, 2025 PTD 586 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-20Read full judgment →
- Shah Zaib & another vs The State2022 SCP 9, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 626, 2022 SCMR 1225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a judgment by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the appellants' convictions for abduction for ransom and terrorism. The prosecution alleged that the appellants kidnapped the victim, Farhan Saeed, for ransom, leading to a police chase, an encounter, and the victim's rescue. The appellants contended that the prosecution's narrative was inconsistent, particularly regarding the ransom note, and suggested the incident was a fabricated encounter. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found that while the appellants were caught red-handed with the handcuffed victim, the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the specific charge of abduction for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the circumstances supported a conviction for simple abduction rather than abduction for ransom or terrorism. Consequently, the Court converted the conviction from Section 365-A to Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reduced the sentence to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, and set aside the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.
Questions settled- Does the presence of a ransom note in an abandoned vehicle, without further corroborating evidence, conclusively prove the offense of abduction for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction for abduction for ransom be converted to simple abduction if the prosecution fails to establish the element of ransom?
- Does the mere act of abduction, absent specific evidence of terrorism, satisfy the requirements for a conviction under Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
- Shah Rukh Jamal vs National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad, etc2022 PLJ Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-15Read full judgment →
- Shah Rukh Jamal vs National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad and others2022 PLD Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated constitutional petition involves the seizure of five vehicles by the National Accountability Bureau during a raid on a property jointly inhabited by the respondent and his close relatives, the petitioners. The petitioners, who are not accused of any offence and operate independent businesses, sought the return of their vehicles, which were dismissed by the Accountability Court on the ground that the vehicles constituted case property. The Islamabad High Court examined whether the Bureau could resort to general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or if it was strictly bound by the special statutory mechanism under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The Court held that the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 is a complete and self-contained special statute whose provisions regarding property seizure (sections 12, 13, and 23) override and are inconsistent with the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court laid down the principle that the Bureau must meet the rigorous evidentiary threshold of having 'reasonable grounds to believe' that a property is connected with an offence before seizing it, and cannot do so on mere suspicion. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for the release of the vehicles to their lawful owners.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 regarding the seizure and freezing of property override the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- What is the required evidentiary threshold for the National Accountability Bureau to interfere with or seize property under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
- Can the National Accountability Bureau seize or detain property belonging to third parties who are not accused in any pending inquiry or investigation on the basis of mere suspicion?
- Does an Accountability Court have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate claims and objections regarding property seized under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
- Shah Rawan vs The State and another2022 YLR 1228 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Shangla, convicting the appellant under sections 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 15 of the Arms Ordinance 1965, along with a connected criminal revision seeking enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular evidence, corroboration by medical and circumstantial evidence, and the effect of abscondence and motive in a case of sudden altercation arising from a land dispute. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimony of the injured eye-witness, being consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon, was wholly reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court laid down the principle that the mere relationship of prosecution witnesses with the deceased does not render their evidence unreliable unless a motive for false implication is established, and that minor irregularities in police investigation do not vitiate a trial unless they result in a miscarriage of justice. Both the appeal and the revision petition were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of an injured eye-witness can be classified as wholly reliable and acted upon without further corroboration?
- Does the mere relationship of prosecution witnesses with the deceased render their testimony unreliable?
- Can defects or irregularities in the police investigation vitiate a criminal trial in the absence of a miscarriage of justice?
- Is abscondence of an accused person considered a strong piece of corroborative evidence when coupled with direct and circumstantial evidence?
- Shah Nawaz Son of Dad Khan, R/O Balarzai Badh Ber Peshawar vs The2022 PHC 620 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz Khan vs State & Another2022 PHC 582 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz and another vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 299 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment concerns a criminal appeal filed by Shah Nawaz and Ahmad Nawaz against their convictions and sentences for murder under Sections 302(b)/34 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, alongside a murder reference for the confirmation of Shah Nawaz's death sentence. The core legal question revolved around the sufficiency and credibility of the prosecution's evidence, particularly the eye-witness accounts, the motive, and the recovery of weapons. The Lahore High Court entertained serious doubts regarding the appellants' participation, noting inconsistencies in the eye-witnesses' presence and statements, a significant delay in the post-mortem examination suggestive of fabricated evidence, dishonest improvements in the motive story, and an inconsequential recovery of a rifle. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted both appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative, reiterating the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Can a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt lead to the acquittal of an accused?
- What impact do inconsistencies in eye-witness accounts have on the prosecution's case in a murder trial?
- Does a significant delay in conducting a post-mortem examination raise doubts about the prosecution's narrative?
- How do dishonest improvements in the motive story affect the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
- Is a recovery of a weapon with a negative forensic report sufficient to establish guilt?
- Shah Nawaz & others vs Government of Sindh2022 SHC 414 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-03Read full judgment →
- Shah Murad Nindwani and another vs The State2022 MLD 344 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court for offenses including murder. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s failure to put specific incriminating evidence—such as inquest reports, forensic recovery details, and ballistic reports—to the appellants during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiated the trial. The High Court held that the trial court’s omission to confront the accused with specific incriminating material was not a mere irregularity curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, but a fundamental illegality that vitiated the conviction. The court emphasized that the accused must have firsthand knowledge of all evidence brought against them to provide an explanation. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the conviction and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to record the appellants' statements afresh, ensuring all prosecution evidence is properly put to them, and to decide the matter anew. This judgment reinforces the mandatory nature of the Section 342 examination in ensuring a fair trial.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a trial court to put specific incriminating evidence to an accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the conviction?
- Is the omission to confront an accused with all prosecution evidence during a Section 342 examination a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the legal consequence when a trial court fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Shah Muhammad Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary and 2 others2022 CLC 1315 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-11Read full judgment →
- Shah Khalid vs The State2022 PHC 308 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-27Read full judgment →
- Shah Khalid and others vs Commandant, Frontier Constabulary Kpk, Peshawar and others2022 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 20 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Service appeals were filed before the Federal Service Tribunal by Frontier Constabulary employees seeking regularization of their contractual service retrospectively from their initial date of appointment in 2005, rather than from their actual regularization date in 2011, along with back benefits. The preliminary objection regarding maintainability and limitation raised by the respondents was rejected, as the appellants had timely approached the Tribunal pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions setting aside a prior High Court order due to lack of jurisdiction. On the merits, the Tribunal considered whether contract employees regularized in service are entitled to retrospective regularization from their initial contract appointment date. Relying on settled precedents of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Tribunal held that regularization of contractual employees takes effect prospectively from the date of the regularization order, not retrospectively from initial recruitment. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, binding itself to the Supreme Court decisions under Article 190 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.
Questions settled- Whether the regularization of a contractual employee takes effect from the date of initial appointment or prospectively from the date of the regularization order?
- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is maintainable within the period allowed by the Supreme Court following the setting aside of a High Court writ petition for lack of jurisdiction?
- Are Service Tribunals bound to follow the dicta of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the prospective effect of regularization under Article 190 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Shah Hussain vs The State & another2022 PHC 466, 2024 PCRLJ 455 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction for murder and related offenses, alongside a revision petition for sentence enhancement and an appeal against the acquittal of a co-accused. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the presence of the sole eye-witness at the scene of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the conviction could be sustained given the inconsistencies in the ocular evidence and the forensic reports. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the complainant at the crime scene, as the narrative of the occurrence was inherently improbable and inconsistent with the medical evidence. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a significant delay in sending crime empties and weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory destroyed the evidentiary value of those recoveries. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the revision petition for enhancement and the appeal against the acquittal of the co-accused, affirming that the prosecution must stand on its own evidence rather than relying on alleged admissions by defense counsel.
Questions settled- Can a criminal conviction be sustained based on the testimony of a solitary eye-witness whose presence at the scene is rendered improbable by medical evidence?
- Does a significant, unexplained delay in sending crime empties and weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory destroy the evidentiary value of such recoveries?
- Is an accused in a criminal case bound by admissions made by their defense counsel during cross-examination?
- Can evidence recorded in a separate criminal case be taken into consideration when deciding the current case?
- Shah Faisal vs The State2022 YLR 2052 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Shah Faisal under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in connection with FIR No. 13 dated 29.03.2022, registered under Sections 5 and 23 of the Federal Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, an employee apprehended during a raid for alleged Hundi and Hawala business, was entitled to post-arrest bail when the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was merely a manager and not the owner, no independent witnesses were associated with the raid, the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause, and he had no previous criminal record, his case fell within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The court established the key principle that in non-prohibitory offences where guilt requires further inquiry and the accused has no criminal record, bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
Questions settled- Whether an accused who is merely an employee and manager rather than the owner of a business premises involved in Hundi operations is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does an offence falling outside the prohibitory degree of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make bail a rule and refusal an exception?
- When does a criminal case become one of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Shafqat Ullah son of Akbar Jan Khan resident of Mira Khel Tehsil and District Bannu vs Mst. Anjuman daughter of Karim Dad resident of Pipal Bazaar Daud Shah Tehsil and District Bannu & another2022 PHC 16, 2024 CLC 363 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-24Read full judgment →
- Shafqat Ali vs Province of Sindh & others2022 SHC 50 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-07Read full judgment →
- Shafiq-Ur-Rehman Khanbati vs The Returning Officer and 3 others2022 YLR 2406 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-24Read full judgment →
- Shafiq-ur-Rehman & Abdul Latif alias Latif vs State.,Mursaleen2022 PHC 412 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition arose from a quashment proceeding converted from an appeal, wherein the convicts-petitioners sought the conversion of their compensation payment into simple imprisonment and the consolidation of their multiple sentences from different trials. The core legal question concerned whether sentences arising from two different trials, constituting the same transaction, can be consolidated to run concurrently under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether such relief can be granted through inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when not addressed during the trial or appellate stage. The Peshawar High Court held that the High Court possesses wide discretion under Section 397 read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct that multiple sentences in separate trials arising from the same transaction run concurrently to meet the ends of justice. The petition was partially allowed, ordering the sentences of one of the convicts to run concurrently.
Questions settled- Whether sentences in two different trials arising from the same transaction can be ordered to run concurrently?
- Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant the benefit of concurrent sentences under Section 397 even if the issue was not addressed during the trial or appellate stage?
- Does Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confer discretion on the court to direct subsequent sentences to run concurrently with previous sentences?
- Shafiq ur Rehman vs Rukhsana Younas & another2022 PHC 218 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-14Read full judgment →
- Shafiq ur Rehman Khanbati vs The Returning Officer, Ward No.2, Municipal2022 SHC 356 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-12Read full judgment →
- Shafiq ur Rehman Khanbati vs The Returning officer & Ors2022 SHC 357 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-12Read full judgment →
- Shafiq A. Shahzad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Textile & 2 others2022 IHC 240 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant serving abroad, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging a notification declaring that his promotion to BPS-20 had lapsed for failure to actualize it within one year under rule 5(5) of the Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-20) Rules 2019. The authorities had dismissed the petitioner's departmental representation under section 22(2) of the Civil Servants Act 1973 and rule 4(1) of the Civil Servants (Appeals) Rules 1977 on the ground that it questioned fitness. The High Court observed that the grievance pertained to terms and conditions of service rather than fitness determination, rendering the representation competent. However, due to the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution, High Court jurisdiction over terms and conditions committed to the Federal Service Tribunal was barred. Consequently, the High Court set aside the letter declaring the representation incompetent and remanded it to the competent authority for decision in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Does the bar under section 22(2) of the Civil Servants Act 1973 apply to a representation challenging the lapsing of a promotion due to non-actualization?
- Does the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 preclude High Court jurisdiction even where the impugned action is alleged to be without jurisdiction, coram non judice, or in violation of fundamental rights?
- Can questions regarding the vires of rules affecting a civil servant's terms and conditions of service be adjudicated by the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Shafi Muhammad (deceased) through L.Rs. vs Mst. Janat (Deceased)2022 SHC 60 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →