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.
- Shabir Khoso and 9 others vs The State2022 MLD 1482 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenges the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the applicants for rioting and causing injuries under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the applicants beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically considering the reliability of eye-witness testimony and procedural compliance during the trial. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, citing major contradictions and improvements in the testimony of the injured witnesses, and the lack of specific injury attribution to individual accused persons. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the failure to put incriminating medical evidence to the accused during their examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendered such evidence inadmissible against them. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the applicants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's evidence must result in acquittal, and that all incriminating circumstances must be explicitly put to the accused to satisfy the requirements of a fair trial.
Questions settled- Does a failure to put incriminating medical evidence to an accused during their Section 342 statement render that evidence inadmissible against them?
- Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions and improvements in the testimony of eye-witnesses?
- Is an accused entitled to acquittal when the prosecution fails to attribute specific injuries to individual accused persons in a case involving multiple defendants?
- Shabbir Ahmad, etc vs Mst. Shaher Bano, etc2022 LHC 2047 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-16Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmad and 3 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 644 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the alleged homicidal death of Mst. Naseem Bibi. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail in a heinous offense involving capital punishment where they were nominated in the FIR and supported by medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were nominated in the crime report, implicated by eyewitnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the medical postmortem report categorically established homicide while ruling out suicide. The Court laid down the principle that pre-arrest bail is restricted to exceptional and rare cases where mala fides, enmity, or absence of an offense is apparent on the record, elements which were missing in this case. Consequently, the pre-arrest bail petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted in a case involving capital punishment when the accused are nominated in the FIR?
- Does a medical report ruling out suicide and confirming homicide provide sufficient grounds to deny pre-arrest bail?
- What is the scope of pre-arrest bail in criminal matters?
- Shabana Khan Advocate vs Major (Retd.) Jehanzeb Aslam and 2 others2022 MLD 1109 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenged the dismissal of an application under Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by the applicant seeking acquittal in a complaint case registered under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether the provisions of Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 could be invoked to summarily dismiss a complaint after cognizance had been taken under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, where rival claims of ownership and possession existed. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court rightly dismissed the acquittal application because deeper appreciation of merits cannot be undertaken without recording evidence, and disputed questions of title and illegal dispossession require parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence during trial. The court laid down the principle that once cognizance is taken under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, a complaint cannot be summarily terminated under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when bona fide factual controversies regarding ownership and possession require a full trial.
Questions settled- Can an application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked in a complaint proceeding under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 after cognizance has been taken?
- Whether disputed questions of title and ownership can be resolved through an acquittal application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a deeper appreciation of merits permissible at the stage of deciding an application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Shabana Haider vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and another2022 PLC (C.S.) 69 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the legality of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan's (SECP) refusal to allow the petitioner to withdraw her resignation. The petitioner, a Deputy Registrar, tendered her resignation with a 30-day notice period but sought to withdraw it before the notice period expired, arguing that the resignation was not yet effective. The core legal question was whether an employee retains the right to withdraw a resignation after it has been formally accepted by the employer but before the completion of the notice period. The Sindh High Court held that the petition was misconceived. The court ruled that under the SECP Human Resource Manual, the right to withdraw a resignation exists only until the moment of its acceptance. The court clarified that the notice period is a distinct requirement for the cessation of employment and does not postpone the validity or effectiveness of an accepted resignation. Consequently, once the resignation was accepted by the competent authority, the employer-employee relationship was severed, and the petitioner had no legal right to unilaterally withdraw the resignation.
Questions settled- Can an employee unilaterally withdraw a resignation after it has been accepted by the employer?
- Does the notice period requirement in an employment contract postpone the effectiveness of an accepted resignation?
- Is the right to withdraw a resignation contingent upon the completion of the notice period?
- Senior Superintendent Of Police (Operations), etc vs Shahid Nazir2022 PLJ SC 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which partly allowed a service appeal and converted the dismissal of a police official into a forfeiture of two years of service. The core legal questions involved whether criminal and departmental proceedings can proceed concurrently, and whether dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry based solely on pending or decided criminal FIRs is legally sustainable when imposing a major penalty. The Supreme Court held that while criminal and departmental proceedings are distinct and can run concurrently, dispensing with a regular inquiry is not permissible where charges are based on disputed questions of fact rather than admitted documents, and an acquittal or stoppage of proceedings under Sections 249 or 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not automatically absolve the department from holding a regular inquiry. The key principles laid down are that departmental proceedings and criminal trials have different standards of proof and objectives, and although regular inquiries are not a mandatory prerequisite in every case, dispensing with them requires compelling, justiciable reasons in writing, particularly when charges involve disputed facts requiring witness examination.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings be conducted concurrently against a civil servant on the same allegations?
- Is it mandatory to hold a regular departmental inquiry in every case before imposing a major penalty?
- Does an acquittal or stoppage of proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 debar an employer from exercising disciplinary powers under service rules?
- When can a competent authority lawfully dispense with a regular departmental inquiry?
- Senior Superintendent Of Police (Operations) and others vs Shahid Nazir2022 SCMR 327, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 679, 2022 PLJ SC 16, 2022 PSC 1257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment which converted the respondent's dismissal from service into a forfeiture of two years of service. The respondent, a police constable, was dismissed following a show-cause notice under the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975, citing involvement in eight criminal cases. The department dispensed with a regular inquiry, relying on documentary evidence of the FIRs. The core legal question was whether a regular inquiry could be dispensed with when charges of misconduct involve disputed facts and criminal allegations. The Supreme Court held that while criminal and departmental proceedings are distinct and can proceed concurrently, a regular inquiry is mandatory when findings of fact depend on witness testimony or when major penalties are contemplated. The Court noted that acquittal in criminal court does not bar disciplinary action, but the presumption of innocence requires that mere registration of FIRs without conviction cannot justify dispensing with an inquiry. Finding the department's conduct negligent in failing to challenge the respondent's acquittals, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that remanding for an inquiry after significant delay would serve no constructive purpose.
Questions settled- Whether a departmental inquiry can be dispensed with when the charges of misconduct are based on disputed questions of fact?
- Does an acquittal in a criminal case under Section 249 or 249-A Cr.P.C. debar an employer from exercising disciplinary powers under service rules?
- Is the mere registration of an FIR sufficient documentary evidence to dispense with a regular inquiry before imposing a major penalty?
- What is the distinction between the standard of proof required in criminal trials versus departmental disciplinary proceedings?
- Sehrish Habib, Advocate & 17 others vs Registrar, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar2022 PHC 56, 2022 PLD Peshawar 226 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-18Read full judgment →
- Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan vs Koh-i-Noor Edible Oil2022 LHC 3419, 2025 CLD 44 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-16Read full judgment →
- Secretary, M/o Finance, Islamabad, etc vs DG, Fde, Government Of2022 PLJ SC 90 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Islamabad-and others vs Tayyaba Halim2022 SCMR 77, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 514, 2022 PSC 864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal and associated petitions arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which directed the government to provide pay protection and count the daily-wage services of teachers and lecturers towards their pensionary benefits. The appellants contended that under Civil Service Regulations (CSR) 361 and Article 352, daily-wage service does not qualify for pension as it lacks a substantive and permanent character. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal and petitions, holding that the continuous service of the respondents for many years, despite artificial breaks created by the employer, proved the permanent nature of their establishment and posts. The Court ruled that denying pay protection and pension benefits to daily-wage employees while granting them to ad-hoc employees was discriminatory, violating Articles 3, 25-A, and 38 of the Constitution. The Court laid down that artificial breaks in service cannot negate the continuous nature of employment, and long-term daily-wage service in permanent establishments must be counted towards pensionary benefits.
Questions settled- Can service rendered on a daily wage basis be counted towards pensionary benefits and pay protection if the employee has served continuously for several years?
- Does the creation of artificial breaks by an employer negate the continuous and permanent nature of an employee's service?
- What constitutes a 'stop-gap arrangement' in service jurisprudence, and can long-term employment extending over several years be classified as such?
- Is it discriminatory and unconstitutional under Articles 3 and 38 of the Constitution to deny pension benefits to regularized daily-wage teachers while granting them to ad-hoc teachers?
- Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Islamabad and others vs Tayyaba Halim2022.PLC (C.S.) 514, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the entitlement of employees, specifically teachers and lecturers, to have their prior service rendered on a daily wage basis counted towards pay protection and pensionary benefits. The appellants challenged the Federal Service Tribunal's decision, which had allowed these benefits, arguing that daily wage service does not qualify for pension under the Civil Service Regulations (CSR) and that such employment was merely a stop-gap arrangement. The Supreme Court held that the respondents' long-term service, despite artificial breaks, constituted substantive and permanent employment rather than a stop-gap arrangement. The Court emphasized that the government cannot exploit employees by creating artificial breaks to deny them service benefits. Relying on the principle of equality and the state's obligation to eliminate exploitation, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the respondents' daily wage service must be counted towards their pension and pay protection. The Court further deprecated the practice of hiring teachers on a daily wage basis, noting it contradicts constitutional principles and the importance of education.
Questions settled- Can service rendered on a daily wage basis be counted towards pensionary benefits and pay protection?
- Does the creation of artificial breaks in employment negate the permanent nature of a position?
- Can the government deny pensionary benefits to employees by classifying their long-term service as a stop-gap arrangement?
- Is the hiring of teachers on a daily wage basis consistent with the constitutional obligations of the state?
- Secretary Schools Education, Government of Punjab and others vs Asghari2022 SCMR 2096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil petitions filed by the Secretary Schools Education, Government of Punjab, challenging the Punjab Service Tribunal's decisions to reinstate two teachers who were dismissed for procuring and utilizing bogus appointment and transfer orders. The core legal questions involved whether the Tribunal erred in ignoring evidence of the respondents' fraudulent conduct and whether the respondents had exhausted proper departmental remedies before approaching the Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal’s decisions were unsustainable, as the respondents were afforded ample opportunities to defend themselves through multiple show-cause notices but failed to do so, instead engaging in vexatious litigation. Furthermore, one respondent failed to file a timely departmental appeal, and the other failed to challenge the withdrawal of her initial appointment for nineteen years, invoking the principle of laches. The Court established that a litigant who sleeps on their rights cannot claim relief, and that the Tribunal cannot entertain service appeals where mandatory departmental appeals were not filed within the prescribed statutory period. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgments and upheld the dismissals.
Questions settled- Can a service appeal be maintained before the Service Tribunal if the aggrieved party failed to file a departmental appeal within the statutory period?
- Does the principle of laches apply to a challenge against an order of withdrawal of appointment made nineteen years prior?
- Is the competent authority empowered to impose a penalty greater than that proposed in a show-cause notice if the circumstances warrant it?
- Can a service tribunal set aside dismissal orders without considering evidence of fraudulent appointment or transfer documents?
- Secretary Finance, Finance Division, Pak. Secretariat Islamabad vs Muhammad Farooq Khan, Secondary School Teacher (BPS-18) Islamabad Model School for Boys, G-614, Islamabad and others2022 PSC 742 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service matter concerns whether the grant of a 'time-scale promotion' to a civil servant constitutes a regular promotion, thereby entitling the employee to a premature increment. The respondent, a Secondary School Teacher, sought a premature increment following his time-scale promotion from BPS-17 to BPS-18. The Supreme Court held that a time-scale promotion is a special financial dispensation rather than a regular promotion. It involves the grant of a higher pay scale without changing the designation, duties, or status of the post. The Court emphasized that the Establishment Division’s Office Memorandum dated 19.09.2011 explicitly clarifies that such time-scale formulas do not constitute up-gradation or regular promotion. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the respondent could not claim benefits contingent upon a 'promotion' while the underlying notification granting the time-scale remained unchallenged. The Court affirmed that time-scale promotion is not a promotion under the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, and set aside the Tribunal's judgment, denying the claim for a premature increment.
Questions settled- Does the grant of a time-scale promotion constitute a regular promotion in service for the purpose of claiming a premature increment?
- Can a civil servant claim benefits contingent upon a 'promotion' without challenging the notification that grants the time-scale promotion?
- Does the grant of a time-scale promotion involve a change in designation or higher responsibility under the relevant service rules?
- Secretary Finance, Finance Division Pak Secretariat, Islamabad vs Muhammad Farooq Khan and others2022 SCMR 381, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1008 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a Federal Service Tribunal decision that directed the appellant (Finance Division) to grant a premature increment to the respondent, a Secondary School Teacher. The respondent had received a time-scale promotion from BPS-17 to BPS-18 and claimed a premature increment on the basis that this constituted a regular promotion. The Supreme Court analyzed the underlying policy documents, specifically the Establishment Division's Office Memorandum dated 19 September 2011, which clarified that the time-scale formula merely grants a higher pay scale without changing the designation or status of the post and does not constitute a regular promotion or up-gradation. The Court held that since the respondent did not challenge the notification implementing this memorandum, the Tribunal could not grant the relief. Distinguishing prior precedents, the Court reaffirmed that time-scale promotion is a policy-based financial benefit rather than a regular promotion under the Civil Servants Act 1973. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal's judgment was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether the grant of a higher pay scale under a time-scale formula constitutes a regular promotion or up-gradation under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
- Can a civil servant claim a premature increment associated with a promotion if the implementing notification explicitly states the time-scale grant is not a promotion, without first challenging the notification itself?
- Does a time-scale promotion granted across the board to all eligible incumbents involve an element of selection or change in post designation?
- SDO/Am, Hasht Nagri Sub Division, PESCO, Peshawar, etc vs Khawazan Zad2022 SCP 430 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case concerns the procedural requirements for corporate litigation under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court addressed whether the authority to sign and verify pleadings (plaint or written statement) is distinct from the authority to institute or defend a suit. The Court held that while Order XXIX, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 governs the signing and verification of pleadings by corporate officers, the actual institution or defense of a suit—the act of presentation—is governed by Order III, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which allows for representation by recognized agents or pleaders. Furthermore, the Court clarified that provisions regarding the signing and verification of pleadings do not apply to memorandums of appeal or revision petitions. Crucially, the Court established that any defect in the authority of a person to sign, verify, or present pleadings, appeals, or revision petitions is a curable procedural irregularity and should not be used to defeat substantive rights. Courts are directed to facilitate the correction of such defects rather than dismissing cases on technicalities.
Questions settled- Is there a legal difference between the authority to sign and verify a pleading and the authority to institute or defend a suit on behalf of a corporation?
- Do the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the signing and verification of pleadings apply to memorandums of appeal and revision petitions?
- Can a defect in the authority of a person to sign, verify, or present a pleading or appeal be cured at a later stage of the proceedings?
- Does the misjoinder of parties constitute a defect that affects the merits of a case or the jurisdiction of the court?
- SDO, PESCO Daudzai Sub-Division Ring Road, Peshawar Etc. vs Wadan Sher2022 SCP 396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil revision petition filed by officials of PESCO (SDO, XEN, and R.O.) challenging a High Court judgment that dismissed their revision for lack of a Board Resolution. The core legal question was whether officials of a corporation, when sued in their personal capacities, are required to produce a Board Resolution to defend legal proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the lower fora erred in law and fact. The Court clarified that when an individual is sued in their personal capacity, rather than the corporation itself, the requirement for a Board Resolution authorizing the defense does not arise, as the corporation and its officials are distinct legal entities. Furthermore, even in cases involving corporations, the absence of a Board Resolution is a curable defect, not an incurable one. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the Petitioners, having been sued in their personal capacities, were not required to produce corporate authorization to contest the suit.
Questions settled- Is a Board Resolution required for an official of a company to defend a lawsuit filed against them in their personal capacity?
- Does the absence of a Board Resolution in a suit involving a corporation constitute an incurable defect?
- Can a corporation ratify the act of signing pleadings by its officers even in the absence of an initial Board Resolution?
- Sawera Ikram vs Amir Naveed2022 PLD Lahore 600 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves multiple transfer applications seeking the transfer of execution petitions arising from decrees passed by Family Courts. The central legal question is whether execution petitions for money decrees passed by Family Courts must be transferred to other districts where the judgment debtor resides, or whether the executing court can satisfy the decree without such transfer. The Court held that transferring execution petitions to other districts causes unnecessary hardship to women and children, who are the primary beneficiaries of the Family Courts Act, 1964. The Court ruled that the executing court can satisfy decrees by adopting procedures such as issuing precepts to other courts for the attachment of property or attaching salaries, rather than transferring the entire petition. The Court emphasized that the Family Courts Act, 1964 is a special statute designed to protect vulnerable segments of society, and procedural technicalities should not hinder justice. Executing courts possess powers to adopt methods for decree satisfaction, including those under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provided they are not inconsistent with the Act.
Questions settled- Can a Family Court execute a money decree by treating the decretal amount as arrears of land revenue?
- Is it necessary to transfer an execution petition to another district simply because the judgment debtor resides there?
- Can an executing court issue a precept to another court for the attachment of property belonging to a judgment debtor?
- Are the technical provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to the execution of decrees passed by Family Courts?
- Sawab Din and others vs Civil Judge Dera Bugti at Sui and others2022 PLJ Quetta 159 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-11-03Read full judgment →
- Sarwar Khan vs Abdul Wahab & The State2022 PHC 400 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
- Sardaran Bibi vs Muhammad Arshad and others2022 CLC 1703 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-23Read full judgment →
- Sardar Shahid Ahmed Khan vs Farzeen Irtizaz& another2022 IHC 174 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the respondent was a habitual offender and had absconded, rendering the bail order arbitrary. The core legal question was whether the circumstances warranted the cancellation of the pre-arrest bail. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order was just and proper. The Court observed that the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 carries a punishment of up to three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The Court reiterated the principle that cancellation of bail requires strong, exceptional grounds, such as misuse of bail, interference with evidence, or fresh material, none of which were established by the petitioner. The Court further noted that allegations of absconsion should be addressed to the trial court.
Questions settled- What are the essential grounds required for the cancellation of bail?
- Does the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Sardar Qurban Ali Dogar vs Pakistan Bar Council through Chairman and 82022 CLC 649, 2022 PLJ Lahore 144, 2022 [M] CLR 1054 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-05Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad Ramzan vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2022 PLJ Peshawar 44, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1585 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for a writ of quo warranto challenged the appointment of the Director General of the Galiyat Development Authority (GDA). The core legal question was whether the respondent, initially holding BPS-18, was legally qualified for the post of Director General, which required BPS-19 under the Galiyat Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 2020. The Court held that the appointment was illegal, noting that the respondent failed to meet the statutory rank requirements at the time of his appointment. The Court further determined that subsequent attempts to regularize the appointment through an acting charge promotion were invalid and constituted an effort to justify an unauthorized posting. The judgment established that a writ of quo warranto may be filed by any person, not necessarily an aggrieved party, to challenge the usurpation of public office. Furthermore, it affirmed that public functionaries must strictly adhere to statutory requirements for appointments, and that failure to comply with these mandatory provisions renders an appointment void. The Court emphasized that public office is a trust, and appointments must be made in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Does a petitioner need to be an aggrieved person to file a writ of quo warranto?
- Can an appointment to a public office be validated retroactively through an acting charge promotion?
- Is an appointment to a public office valid if the appointee does not meet the statutory rank requirements at the time of appointment?
- Sardar Muhammad Kamal-ud-Din Khan vs Syed Munir Syed and others2022 SCP 24, 2022 SCMR 806, 2022 PSC 457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the High Court passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, whereby concurrent orders of the subordinate courts staying arbitration proceedings were set aside. The core legal questions involved were whether the High Court properly exercised revisional jurisdiction where the subordinate courts committed no jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity, and whether a party who instituted a civil suit regarding the subject matter of an agreement could subsequently initiate unilateral arbitration proceedings after the dismissal and abandonment of that suit. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in assuming revisional jurisdiction as the subordinate court acted within its lawful authority, and further held that a party cannot bypass statutory procedures or unilaterally resort to arbitration after abandoning civil litigation on the same subject matter. Additionally, the Court held that an arbitration award passed with undue haste and in violation of due process and fair trial principles guaranteed under the Constitution is legally unsustainable. The appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 where the subordinate court has acted within its jurisdiction without any material irregularity?
- Whether a party who institutes a civil suit regarding the subject matter of an agreement and permits its dismissal can subsequently initiate unilateral arbitration proceedings disregarding statutory procedures?
- Is an arbitration award rendered in undue haste and without affording a proper opportunity of hearing sustainable under the law?
- Whether an application challenging the validity, effect, and existence of an arbitration agreement is maintainable under section 31 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Sardar Manzoor Chughtai, President All United Public Transport Union2022 SC AJ&K 16 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Sardar Imdad Hussain Gorchani vs President N.B.P & Ors2022 SHC 204, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 203 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner assailing his termination from service by the National Bank of Pakistan on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty, which occurred just prior to his superannuation. The core legal questions involved whether an employee could be subjected to dual punishments for the same charge, whether a regular inquiry was mandatory when absence was disputed and leave balances were available, and the validity of termination without adhering to proper disciplinary procedures. The Sindh High Court held that the termination order and subsequent appellate order were not sustainable in law because the respondent bank failed to conduct a regular departmental inquiry under its service regulations, improperly awarded dual punishments, and ignored the petitioner's available leave credits. The court allowed the petition, setting aside the termination, and directed the competent authority to issue a retirement order and grant pensionary and superannuation benefits to the petitioner.
Questions settled- Whether two punishments can be awarded to an employee on the same charges of unauthorized absence?
- Whether a regular inquiry is essential to ascertain culpability when an employee has substantial leave credit in balance?
- Whether an employee's services can be terminated for unauthorized absence without conducting a regular inquiry under the service regulations?
- Sardar Atta Ellahi Abbasi, Asc and others vs Azad Government of The State2022 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 86 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Sardar Aman Khan vs KP Bar Council etc2022 PHC 198, 2022 PLD Peshawar 221 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-16Read full judgment →
- Sardar Ali Son of Sameen Jan vs The State2022 SHC 570 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court Control of Narcotic Substances, which convicted the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 19.200 kilograms of charas, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the chain of custody for the narcotics was maintained, and whether the investigation conducted by the complainant himself rendered the proceedings invalid. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution’s evidence—comprising eyewitness testimony, recovery memos, and a positive chemical examiner's report—was reliable and consistent. The Court affirmed that the chain of custody was unbroken and that the investigation by the complainant did not inherently prejudice the accused in the absence of proven enmity. The key principle laid down is that in narcotics cases, where the prosecution provides trustworthy evidence of recovery and safe transmission, technical procedural objections regarding the investigation or the absence of private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, should not lead to acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the fact that the complainant is also the investigation officer in a narcotics case automatically invalidate the investigation?
- Is the failure to associate private witnesses during a recovery proceeding fatal to the prosecution's case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained when the prosecution proves the safe custody and transmission of samples to the chemical examiner?
- Sardar Ali Khan vs State Bank of Pakistan & others2022 SCP 72, 2022 SCMR 1454 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the calculation of pensionary benefits of a retired United Bank Limited (UBL) employee. The petitioner, having retired in 2012, challenged the bank's calculation of his pension based on a 'frozen' basic pay from June 2001, as stipulated in Staff Circular No. 943/2001. The petitioner contended that benefits should be based on his last drawn pay. The Trial and Appellate Courts dismissed the suit, finding that the petitioner had accepted a 40% salary increase under the same circular for over a decade, thereby electing the benefit and its accompanying burden. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings, applying the doctrines of estoppel, acquiescence, and 'approbate and reprobate'. It held that a party cannot accept the benefits of an instrument while rejecting its burdens. Furthermore, the Court noted that the High Court correctly disposed of the matter in light of the Supreme Court's earlier Suo Motu Case No. 20 of 2016, which established a minimum pension floor for private bank retirees. Leave to appeal was declined.
- Sardar Ali Khan vs Federation Of Pakistan and 7 others2022 PLD Federal Shariat Court 52 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-01-13Read full judgment →
- Saqlain Abbas vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 894 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the confirmation of pre-arrest bail for the petitioner, Saqlain Abbas, in connection with FIR No. 138/21 registered at Police Station Thatah Sadiqabad, District Khanewal, for offenses under Sections 506(ii), 337-F(i), 337-L(ii), 109, 427, 379, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the investigation findings. The Court observed that while the petitioner was named in the FIR, the role attributed to him was generalized. Furthermore, investigation revealed that co-accused initially alleged to be armed with firearms were found innocent, suggesting the prosecution's case was exaggerated. The Court held that the possibility of false implication with mala fide intent could not be ruled out, rendering the petitioner's arrest unnecessary. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the ad interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed, establishing that where allegations are generalized and investigation casts doubt on the prosecution's narrative, pre-arrest bail is warranted to prevent misuse of the criminal process.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the role attributed to the accused in the FIR is generalized?
- Does the finding of innocence of co-accused during investigation provide grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail for other accused?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted if the court finds the prosecution's case appears exaggerated and motivated by mala fide intent?
- Saqib Khan vs The State and another2022 P Cr. L J 580 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of a juvenile appellant for rape and sodomy under sections 376 and 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sexual abuse under sections 53 and 54(2) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence to sustain convictions under both the Penal Code and the Child Protection and Welfare Act, and the appropriate sentencing for a juvenile offender following a compromise between the parties. The Court held that while the medical and circumstantial evidence sufficiently established the offences of rape and sodomy, the prosecution failed to prove the distinct offence of sexual abuse as defined under the Child Protection and Welfare Act. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant of the charges under the Act but maintained the convictions under the Penal Code. Applying the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, and considering the compromise, the Court reduced the sentence to ten years and ordered the appellant's release on probation, emphasizing the necessity of rehabilitation for juvenile offenders.
Questions settled- Does the offence of sodomy under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 contain the same ingredients as sexual abuse under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010?
- Can a juvenile offender be released on probation under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, after being convicted of serious offences?
- Is the testimony of a complainant regarding a victim's immediate disclosure admissible as res gestae under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- Saqib Ali vs Government of Punjab and others2022 SCMR 2089 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed his Intra Court Appeal, thereby upholding the withdrawal of his provisional appointment letter as a Hardware and Network Technician in the Punjab Police. The petitioner was issued a provisional appointment letter subject to character verification, but before joining, he was nominated in a criminal case under Sections 324, 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Although he was later acquitted on the basis of a compromise, the department withdrew his appointment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the police department is a disciplined force requiring personnel of the highest moral standards and clean records. An acquittal based on a compromise, rather than on merits, does not wipe out the adverse character implications. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition was barred by 552 days without sufficient justification, and that successive constitutional petitions filed by the petitioner on the same matter were barred by the principle of res judicata.
Questions settled- Does an acquittal based on a compromise in a criminal case entitle a candidate to the restoration of a provisional appointment that was subject to character verification?
- Can a petitioner seek condonation of delay on the ground of waiting for the outcome of an application sent to the Chief Justice instead of filing a formal petition within the prescribed period?
- Are successive constitutional petitions on the same subject matter barred by the principle of res judicata?
- Shah Jehan vs State2022 PHC 210 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-16Read full judgment →
- Saqib Ali Khokhar, Director (Regional)/ Additional Director through2022 SCMR 374, 2022 PSC 690, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 899 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises out of a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, which allowed a service appeal and directed the Sindh Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority (STEVTA) to grant promotions in accordance with the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and its rules rather than under STEVTA's own rules. The core legal question was whether civil servants transferred to STEVTA continue to be governed by the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 regarding their terms and conditions, including promotions, or by the STEVTA Act and its rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that following the omission of subsections (4), (5), and (6) of section 15 of the STEVTA Act, transferred employees continue to be government servants unless absorbed by consent, and their service structure and promotion criteria cannot be altered except through an Act enacted under Article 240 of the Constitution. The key principle laid down is that the terms and conditions of civil servants, including seniority and promotion, remain governed by the parent civil servants act unless legally altered in accordance with Article 240 of the Constitution.
Questions settled- Whether civil servants transferred to the Sindh Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority continue to be governed by the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Can the terms and conditions of service of civil servants be altered by an authority's rules without an enactment under Article 240 of the Constitution?
- What is the effect of the omission of subsections (4), (5), and (6) of section 15 of the Sindh Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority Act, 2009 on transferred employees?
- Sanwal @ Charya vs The State2022 SHC 368 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the alleged recovery of a crime weapon and an extra-judicial confession. The Court found that the prosecution failed to examine the police officer who allegedly recovered the weapon, rendering the recovery unreliable. Furthermore, the Court held that the appellant's alleged confession to police officials was inadmissible under Article 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Additionally, the failure to confront the appellant with the forensic report and the recovery during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 further weakened the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace.
Questions settled- Is a confession made before police officials admissible in evidence?
- Does the failure to confront an accused with a forensic report during Section 342 Cr.P.C examination render the recovery inconsequential?
- Is it necessary to have multiple circumstances to grant the benefit of doubt to an accused?
- Sanofi-Aventis Pakistan Limited and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 PCTLR 1505 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-02Read full judgment →
- Sanaullah vs The State2022 YLR 1319 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Sanaullah, who was found guilty of murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Uthal. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given inconsistencies in the ocular account, the delay in recording witness statements, and contradictions between the medical evidence and the eyewitness testimony. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt, noting that the eyewitnesses, who were closely related to the deceased, had been disbelieved regarding the seven acquitted co-accused, and their testimony lacked independent corroboration. Furthermore, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account regarding the nature of the gunshot wounds. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution witnesses are disbelieved regarding some co-accused, their testimony cannot be relied upon against others without strong independent corroboration, and any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of prosecution witnesses be relied upon against an accused if those same witnesses have been disbelieved regarding co-accused in the same transaction?
- Does the absence of blackening or charring around a gunshot wound contradict an ocular account claiming the weapon was fired at close range?
- Is it necessary for the prosecution to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt, and what is the consequence of a reasonable doubt arising in the evidence?
- Sanaullah vs Station House Officer Police Station Nushki and 3 others2022 MLD 990 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-12Read full judgment →
- Sanaullah vs Mst. Razia Bibi and others2022 PLJ Quetta 112 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-03-31Read full judgment →
- Sanaullah Khan vs National Bank of Pakistan through President & others2022 PHC 126 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-13Read full judgment →
- Sana-ur-Rehman vs The State & another2022 SHC 512 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant, a small-town dealer of agricultural products, was convicted under Section 21(2)(b) of the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971 for selling a sub-standard pesticide manufactured by a third party. The applicant challenged his conviction before the Sindh High Court. The core legal question was whether a pesticide distributor or dealer can be held criminally liable for selling a sub-standard product when the product was sold in sealed containers purchased lawfully from the manufacturer without any knowledge of its defect or tampering by the dealer. The court held that while Section 21(1) of the Ordinance creates an offence of strict liability, offences carrying prison sentences must be construed as 'true crimes' where the requirement of mens rea should be read into the provision unless the seller knew, should have known, had reason to believe the product was sub-standard, adulterated it themselves, or acquired it from an unreliable source. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove that the complainant was a duly notified Inspector under Section 15 of the Ordinance, and the evidence was vitiated by severe procedural lapses in sample collection, preservation, and chain of custody. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the applicant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether a pesticide dealer can be held criminally liable for selling a sub-standard product contained in intact manufacturer-sealed containers without knowledge of the defect?
- Should the requirement of mens rea be read into a statutory offence carrying a prison sentence even if the legislative provision is silent on a guilty mind?
- What are the legal consequences when the prosecution fails to establish that the complainant was a duly notified Inspector under the relevant statute?
- Does a fatal flaw in the sample collection, preservation, and chain of custody vitiate a criminal conviction under the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971?
- Sana Ullah vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1121 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-09Read 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 the murder of the complainant's son by throwing him into a canal. The core legal questions involve the credibility of an uncorroborated ocular account, the evidentiary value of testimony by chance witnesses, the effect of unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and the application of the benefit of the doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to an unexplained eleven-hour delay in reporting the crime, the doubtful and chance nature of the eye-witnesses' presence at the crime scene, omissions in the FIR, and a lack of recovery or established motive. Consequently, the court laid down that a conviction cannot be sustained on shaky and suspect evidence of chance witnesses without plausible explanations for their presence, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR is sufficient to cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version?
- Can the testimony of a chance witness be relied upon without convincing explanations for their presence at the crime scene?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Whether an un-witnessed occurrence with shaky ocular evidence is sufficient to maintain a conviction for murder?
- Sana Ullah Khan vs The State and 3 others2022 PCRLJ 1828 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges an acquittal order passed by the trial court under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of an appeal against an acquittal under Section 8-A of the said Act. The Lahore High Court held that the right of appeal is a creation of statute and cannot be inferred by implication; Section 8-A of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 provides a right of appeal solely against convictions and orders under Section 8(1), omitting any right of appeal against acquittals. Consequently, an appeal against an acquittal under the Act is not maintainable, nor can an acquittal be converted into a conviction via revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, though a constitutional petition may remain available where no other efficacious remedy exists. The key principle laid down is that the right of appeal is strictly statutory, and in the absence of an express legislative provision granting a right of appeal against an acquittal under special legislation, such an appeal is incompetent.
Questions settled- Is an appeal maintainable against an order of acquittal passed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
- Does Section 8-A of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 provide a right of appeal against an acquittal?
- Can a right of appeal be inferred by implication where the statute is silent?
- Can the High Court convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction?
- Sana Sohail Khan vs National Industrial Relations Commission, etc2022 LHC 4580, 2022 PLC 167 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which had set aside a single-member order reinstating the petitioner, on the grounds that she was not a "workman." The core legal question was whether the NIRC correctly determined the petitioner's status as a "workman" under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and whether the evidence regarding her duties was properly evaluated. The High Court held that the NIRC's decision was unsustainable due to the misreading and non-reading of evidence, specifically because the tribunal relied on a piecemeal reading of the petitioner's cross-examination while ignoring her testimony regarding her subsequent demotion. The Court remanded the matter for a fresh decision, establishing the principle that evidence must be read as a whole to reach a just conclusion. Furthermore, it affirmed that designation is not the sole determinant of employment status; rather, the nature of duties performed is the paramount factor, and once a claimant establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to prove the claimant is not a workman.
Questions settled- Does the designation of an employee determine their status as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
- Is it permissible for a tribunal to determine an employee's status based on a piecemeal reading of their testimony?
- Once a claimant establishes a prima facie case of being a 'workman', does the burden of proof shift to the employer to prove otherwise?
- Can the High Court interfere in a tribunal's decision if it is based on the misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Sana Jamali vs Mujeeb Qamar and another2022 SCP 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a challenge to a High Court judgment that set aside an ex-parte decree passed by a Family Court and remanded the case for fresh decision. The petitioner, having obtained an ex-parte decree for dissolution of marriage and maintenance, challenged the High Court's intervention via a Constitution Petition, arguing that the respondent had an adequate alternative remedy of appeal under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution when a statutory appeal mechanism exists. The Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining the Constitution Petition, as the 1964 Act provides a specific appellate forum (the District Court) for challenging Family Court decrees. The Court reaffirmed the principle that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass an equally efficacious, adequate statutory remedy. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Family Court's original decree, emphasizing that litigants must exhaust prescribed statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary relief.
Questions settled- Can a party invoke the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 when an adequate statutory remedy of appeal is available under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
- Does the High Court have the authority to convert a Constitution Petition into an appeal when the statutory appellate forum is the District Court rather than the High Court?
- Under what circumstances may a Family Court order substituted service of summons under Order V, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Samsons Group of Companies vs Panthers Developers and others2022 MLD 1514 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-31Read full judgment →
- Samsons Group of Companies vs Panthers Developers and 2 others2022 PLJ Islamabad 106 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-31Read full judgment →
- Samsons Group of Companies vs Panther Developers and others2022 [M] CLR 548, 2022 CLD 932 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which opposed an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The core legal questions involved the applicability of Order VII Rule 11 CPC to section 20 arbitration proceedings, the constitutional remedy available following the elimination of civil revisions by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2020, and the doctrines of non est factum, ratification, and corporate authority under the Companies Act, 2017. The Islamabad High Court held that Order VII Rule 11 CPC is inapplicable to proceedings under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and that civil courts must instead apply the statutory test of sufficient cause. Furthermore, the court held that lack of formal authorization for a contract can be cured by ratification through conduct, and that arbitration agreements involving corporate entities remain governed by the Arbitration Act rather than the special jurisdiction of the Company Bench. The petition was dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be invoked in proceedings under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- How does the elimination of civil revision by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2020 affect the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
- Can a contract executed on behalf of a company without a formal board resolution be ratified through the subsequent conduct of the company?
- Does an arbitration agreement involving a company fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Company Bench under the Companies Act, 2017?
- Is a plea of non est factum rebuttable by attendant circumstances and the subsequent performance of a contract?
- Samson Group of Companies vs Public Private Partnership & others2022 PHC 402 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
- Samman Maqbool vs Province of Punjab etc2022 LHC 4431 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-17Read full judgment →
- Samiullah son of Muhamad Badshah, Zahoor Ahmed @ Abdullah son of Abdul Malik, Dad Shah son of Ahmed Shah vs The State,The State, The State2022 SHC 432, 2024 MLD 44 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses six criminal appeals arising from a single judgment dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court No.X, Karachi, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with Sections 353, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and under Section 23(1)(A) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The core legal question involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the police encounter and the charges of firing and possession of illicit arms beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that material contradictions among prosecution witnesses, lack of blood evidence at the scene or inside the police mobile despite a chest injury, presence of blackening and charring on the entry wound, and conflicting accounts of the arrest cast serious doubt on the prosecution's version of events. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, giving the benefit of the doubt to the appellants and ordering their immediate acquittal. The key principle laid down is that material contradictions in ocular testimony, coupled with medical evidence inconsistent with the alleged manner of injury, destroy the credibility of the prosecution case, requiring the benefit of the doubt to be resolved in favor of the accused.
Questions settled- Whether material contradictions between eyewitness accounts and medical evidence are sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a prosecution case?
- Does the presence of blackening and charring on an entry wound invalidate the prosecution's claim of a distant police encounter?
- Whether an accused is entitled to acquittal when the foundational facts of an alleged crime, such as the occurrence of a police encounter and the place of arrest, are rendered doubtful?
- Samiullah and 4 others vs The State2022 YLR 1439 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against conviction, a criminal revision petition for enhancement of sentences, and a criminal acquittal appeal. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence in a criminal trial involving conflicting ocular testimony, delayed police statements, missing independent witnesses, and contradictory medical evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions among related and interested witnesses, delayed recording of statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without explanation, lack of independent corroboration despite the availability of impartial witnesses, and inconsistencies between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the cause of death. The court laid down the principle that the testimony of related witnesses, when uncorroborated by independent evidence and fraught with material contradictions, cannot form the basis of a conviction, and that an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt where the prosecution's case suffers from multiple serious infirmities. Consequently, the conviction appeals were accepted, the appellants were acquitted, and the revision and acquittal appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related and interested witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration when independent witnesses are available but withheld?
- Does a delay in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without plausible explanation render the witnesses' testimony suspicious?
- Whether an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when the ocular testimony is in direct conflict with the medical evidence?
- What is the scope of interference by an appellate court against a judgment of acquittal which carries a double presumption of innocence?
- Samina Yasmin, Prop; Faisal Electronics, Wazirabad vs Commissioner2022 PTD (Trib.) 1319 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2022-03-14Read full judgment →
- Samia Anwar etc. vs Nasir Hussain etc.2022 LHC 1933 · Lahore High Court · 2000-01-10Read full judgment →
- Samar Abbas vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 385 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on ocular testimony, alleged motive, and forensic evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. Specifically, the eye-witnesses were deemed 'chance witnesses' whose presence at the crime scene was unexplained and doubtful. Furthermore, the motive was unsubstantiated, and the forensic evidence regarding the weapon recovery was rendered immaterial because the crime empties were sent to the laboratory after the appellant's arrest. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits and that any reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's story entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of a chance witness be accepted without a justifiable reason for their presence at the crime scene?
- Does the burden of proof shift to the accused if the prosecution fails to discharge its initial onus?
- What is the evidentiary value of a positive forensic report when crime empties are sent to the laboratory after the accused's arrest?
- Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to entitle an accused to an acquittal?
- Samar Abbas vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 336 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Samar Abbas, in a case registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery of 1380 grams of Charas, which was found in the premises of a third party rather than in the petitioner's exclusive possession, and the fact that the petitioner was not apprehended at the scene. The Court observed that the petitioner was nominated based on information provided by a secret informer whose statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, was not on record, raising serious questions regarding identification and the veracity of the evidence. Holding that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry and noting the petitioner was a first-time offender no longer required for investigation, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where recovery is not from the exclusive possession of the accused and identification is disputed, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Does the recovery of narcotics from a third party's premises, rather than the accused's exclusive possession, constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can an accused be denied bail when the prosecution's case relies on the statement of a secret informer whose statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not on record?
- Is the absence of the accused at the scene of recovery a factor that raises a serious question of identification for the purpose of bail?
- Salman Shahid vs University of Management And Technology, through Chairman, Board of Governors and Boards of Trustees and 9 others2022 CLC 1328 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-21Read full judgment →
- Salman Khan vs The State2022 PSC CRI 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court of Balochistan denying him post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a shooting incident involving law enforcement personnel that resulted in a death and injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for post-arrest bail considering the applicability of offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned order, and accepted the bail application. The Court held that under the facts and circumstances, offences such as qatl-bis-sabab or qatl-i-khata appeared to be made out rather than qatl-i-amd under Section 302 PPC, and since the applicable provisions fell outside the prohibitory clause and no exceptions justified continued detention, the petitioner was entitled to bail.
Questions settled- Whether an offence under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when the tentative assessment of the record shows that an offence outside the prohibitory clause is made out rather than a capital charge?
- Whether the detention of an accused pending trial can be justified without attracting recognized exceptions for withholding bail?
- Salman Khan etc vs University of Swat etc2022 PHC 262, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 183 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
- Salman Ahmad vs Syed Ali Raza Naqvi and another2022 MLD 1342 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, East-Islamabad in a case concerning criminal breach of trust and financial loss caused to a corporate entity through the unauthorized sale of company SIM cards. The core legal question was whether sufficient grounds existed to recall the concession of pre-arrest bail already extended to the accused. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the principles governing the cancellation of bail are distinct from those for its initial grant, requiring very strong and exceptional circumstances which the petitioner failed to establish. Furthermore, the court observed that the trial had already commenced, charges were framed, and the complainant party was responsible for causing delays. The key principle laid down is that superior courts are reluctant to interfere with bail concession once granted unless patent illegality, misuse of liberty, or other exceptional grounds are shown, and courts generally should not grant or cancel bail while the trial is actively in progress.
Questions settled- Whether bail once granted can be cancelled without strong and exceptional grounds?
- Should courts interfere with or cancel bail when the trial is already in progress?
- What are the established principles governing the cancellation of pre-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Salma Karamat vs District Education Officer (M-Ee), Narowal, etc2022 LHC 5922 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-13Read full judgment →
- Salma Bibi etc vs Rana Sagheer Hussain2022 LHC 3434, 2022 PLD Lahore 589 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-21Read full judgment →
- Saleem Ullah Khan, Advocate vs Fowad Ahmed Chaudhary, Former2022 IHC 282 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition sought the initiation of contempt proceedings against a former Federal Minister for allegedly derogatory remarks made regarding the Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court during a television interview. The petitioner argued that the respondent's criticism of a judicial decision and his comments regarding a judge constituted criminal contempt. The core legal question was whether intemperate, partisan criticism of a delivered judgment constitutes judicial contempt or scandalizing the court, and how to balance freedom of speech under Article 19 of the Constitution with the need to protect the administration of justice. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the law of contempt is not intended to shield judges from criticism or impose judicial censorship. It established that while scandalizing the court remains an offence, criticism of a judgment—even if harsh, partisan, or in bad taste—does not constitute contempt unless it impugns the integrity or impartiality of a judge or causes substantial detriment to the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that judicial legitimacy rests on the merit of decisions, not on suppressing public discourse.
Questions settled- Does harsh or intemperate criticism of a delivered judicial judgment constitute contempt of court?
- What is the threshold for finding that speech scandalizes the court or brings it into hatred or ridicule?
- How must a court balance the constitutional right to freedom of speech against the need to protect the administration of justice?
- Is the intent of the speaker relevant in determining judicial contempt versus criminal contempt?
- Saleem Ullah Khan, Advocate vs Fawad Ahmed Chaudhary, Former2022 IHC 218 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an advocate, sought contempt proceedings against a former Federal Minister for making disparaging remarks regarding the Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court in a television interview. The core legal question was whether intemperate criticism of a court’s judgment constitutes contempt of court under the Constitution and the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the power of contempt is an extraordinary jurisdiction that must be exercised with restraint. The Court established that the law of contempt is not intended to shield judges from criticism or to censor public discourse regarding judicial decisions. While freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions, criticism of a decided judgment—even if harsh, partisan, or in bad taste—does not constitute contempt unless it impugns the integrity or impartiality of a judge or causes substantial detriment to the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that judicial legitimacy rests on the merit of its reasoning rather than the suppression of public opinion.
Questions settled- Does intemperate criticism of a court judgment constitute contempt of court?
- Is the power of contempt intended to shield judges from public scrutiny or criticism?
- What is the distinction between criminal contempt and judicial contempt under the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003?
- Under what circumstances does criticism of a judge or court judgment constitute scandalizing the court?
- Saleem Mehmood vs Ch. Saeed Asghar2022 LHC 1993 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-09Read full judgment →
- Saleem Butt & Another vs Dr. Afnan Ullah Khan & Another2022 SHC 294, 2025 PLD Sindh 28 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-27Read full judgment →
- Saleem Ahmad vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2022 PLJ Peshawar 194 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Salamat Ali and others vs Muhammad Din and others2022 PLD Supreme Court 353, 2022 PSC 622, KLR 2022 Supreme Court Cases · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment, rendered in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, which set aside concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts and dismissed the appellants' suit concerning inheritance and land alienations. The core legal questions involved the appellants' status as legal heirs, the revisional court's power to interfere with concurrent findings of fact, and the applicability of limitation to the suit. The Supreme Court held that the appellants had sufficiently proved their heirship under the standard of 'preponderance of probability', and the revisional court erred in overturning these concurrent findings without demonstrating misreading or perverse appraisal of evidence. However, the Court upheld the dismissal of the suit on grounds of limitation. It ruled that the benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908, regarding fraud, was unavailable against the respondents, who were bona fide purchasers. The right to sue accrued on 12.05.1960 when the co-sharer sold and transferred possession of the land, constituting an 'actual denial' of rights. Applying Article 120 of the Limitation Act, the suit filed in 1982 was time-barred.
- Salah Uddin vs The State and 3 others2022 PLD Sindh 354 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged a trial court order dismissing an application for the prosecution of an accused for perjury. The core legal question was whether an accused person, testifying on oath under Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, could be prosecuted for perjury under Section 193, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether such prosecution is mandatory when the statement is immaterial to the case. The High Court held that while an accused testifying under Section 340(2) is not a 'witness' in the conventional sense, they may be liable for perjury if they make a false statement. However, perjury requires a statement made with knowledge of its falsity, not a bona fide mistake or presumption. The court affirmed that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to dismiss the application, as the accused's statement resulted from a bona fide misunderstanding of his legal status. The key principle laid down is that the initiation of perjury proceedings is a judicial discretion, and private parties cannot challenge a court's refusal to prosecute if the court finds no prima facie case.
Questions settled- Can an accused person be prosecuted for perjury under Section 193, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for statements made while testifying on oath under Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a trial court have the discretion to refuse to initiate proceedings for perjury under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if it finds no prima facie case?
- Is a false statement made by an accused under a bona fide mistake or presumption sufficient to constitute the offense of giving false evidence?
- Can a private party challenge a trial court's refusal to initiate perjury proceedings under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Salah Uddin Khan vs Public Procurement Regulatory Authority and others2022 CLC 497 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
- Sakina vs The State and through Advocate General Aj&K, Muzaffarabad2022 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 18 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a woman accused of murder, sought post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of her trial, having been detained for over one year. The trial court had previously declined bail, characterizing the petitioner as a "hardened, desperate, and dangerous criminal" due to the brutal nature of the offense, which involved luring the deceased to a deserted location where he was murdered and his body burned. The core legal question was whether the statutory entitlement to bail under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for women accused of non-bailable offenses is absolute, or if it remains subject to the proviso excluding "hardened, desperate, or dangerous" criminals. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, ruling that the statutory right to bail is not absolute. It affirmed that courts retain the discretion to deny bail to such individuals based on the heinousness of the crime and the conduct of the accused. The principle laid down is that the brutal nature of an offense and the specific role of the accused can justify classifying them as a dangerous criminal, thereby overriding the statutory bail entitlement.
Questions settled- Is the statutory right to bail for women accused of non-bailable offenses absolute?
- Can a court deny bail to a woman accused of a non-bailable offense on the ground that she is a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal?
- What factors should a court consider when determining if an accused is a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal?
- Does the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to an accused who has not been previously convicted?
- Sakina and 39 others vs Provincial Government Gilgit Baltistan through Chief Secretary Gilgit and 3 others2022 MLD 1393 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-11-05Read full judgment →
- Sakhi Jan and another vs Qamar Ali Khan2022 PLJ SC 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-28Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Hussain vs The State etc2022 SCP 116, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 424, 2022 SCMR 1540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302(b) PPC involving a double murder and injuries caused during a firing incident. The petitioner was sentenced to death by the Trial Court, which the High Court later commuted to life imprisonment while acquitting several co-accused. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's conviction could be sustained on the same set of evidence that led to the acquittal of co-accused who were assigned similar roles. The Supreme Court observed that although the petitioner was assigned a specific role, the ocular account was inconsistent, and the medical evidence suggested injuries could have been caused by the acquitted co-accused. Furthermore, the police investigation initially found the petitioner only liable for abetment, yet no evidence of conspiracy under Section 107 PPC or recovery of the weapon was produced. Applying the principle of 'benefit of doubt,' the Court held that where prosecution evidence is unreliable or indistinguishable from that of acquitted co-accused, the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right.
- Sajjad Hussain alias Shaka vs The State and another2022 YLR 359 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of the applicant’s sentence of life imprisonment pending the disposal of his criminal appeal. The applicant had been convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the suspension of his sentence and release on bail given the circumstances of the case and the delay in the appeal process. The Court observed that the applicant was not named in the initial crime report, no identification parade was conducted, and the prosecution relied solely on witnesses who were relatives of the deceased. Furthermore, the applicant had already served over eight years in prison, and the final disposal of the appeal was not imminent. The Court held that the liberty of the individual is a precious right, and in the absence of a reparatory mechanism for wrongful incarceration, suspension of sentence is appropriate when the appeal is unlikely to be decided soon. The sentence was suspended, and bail was granted.
Questions settled- Can a sentence be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the disposal of the main criminal appeal is not likely in the near future?
- Does the absence of an identification parade and the fact that the accused was not named in the FIR constitute valid grounds for considering the suspension of a sentence pending appeal?
- Is the liberty of a convict a relevant consideration for the suspension of sentence when there is no legal mechanism to compensate for wrongful incarceration?
- Sajjad Hussain (deceased) through legal heirs etc vs Mst. Mumtaz Mai etc2022 LHC 8228 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-14Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Etc vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2022 PHC 108 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-05Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Ashraf vs The State and 2 others2022 PCRLJ 779 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a criminal petition under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents in a private complaint under Section 6(1) of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery Act, 2016, read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was barred by time by ninety-seven days. The petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 seeking condonation of delay, attributing the delay to a lockdown of the District Courts due to lawyers' strikes and the subsequent time taken to obtain certified copies. The core legal question was whether a lawyers' strike and consequent inability to obtain certified copies constitute a sufficient cause for condoning a delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Lahore High Court held that lawyers' strikes are illegal and unethical and do not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning delay, as recognizing such grounds would be against public policy and public interest. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the petition was dismissed as time-barred.
Questions settled- Whether a lawyers' strike constitutes a sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
- Can the time spent due to a voluntary boycott or strike of courts by lawyers be excluded for the purpose of limitation?
- Does the failure to apply for certified copies within the available limitation period preclude the condonation of delay?
- Sajjad alias Sijoo Gopang vs The State2022 SHC 466 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the judgment of the First Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC/Special Judge for CNS, Kamber, convicting the appellant under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. During the pendency of the appeal, it was reported that the appellant had already completed his sentence and been released from prison. When produced before the High Court, the appellant stated that he did not wish to press the appeal on merits. Nevertheless, the court reviewed the prosecution evidence and the trial court's findings, noting that the appellant had earlier admitted his guilt before the trial court and that the chemical examiner's report was positive with intact samples. The core legal question was whether the conviction was sustainable upon re-appraisal of evidence when the appellant chose not to press the appeal. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was based on sound judicial principles and required no interference. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
Questions settled- Can an appeal against conviction be dismissed as not pressed when the appellant has already served the sentence?
- Whether a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 can be sustained upon an accused's admission of guilt before the trial court?
- Does a positive chemical examiner's report with an intact sample rule out tampering in a narcotics case?
- Sajida Rehmat Ullah vs Guardian Judge-II and others2022 PLD Lahore 183 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-10Read full judgment →
- Sajid Ullah Khan and another vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 296 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, serving as Patrol Officers in the National Highways and Motorways Police, challenged their transfer order before the Islamabad High Court through a constitutional petition, contending it violated the wedlock policy and departmental rules. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether a High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition filed by civil servants regarding matters of transfer and posting, or if such matters fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that matters of transfer and posting form an integral part of the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts and High Courts by virtue of the constitutional bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The key principle laid down is that disputes concerning the transfer and posting of civil servants exclusively fall within the domain of the Service Tribunal, and constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass this forum.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate upon the transfer and posting of civil servants?
- Whether matters relating to the transfer and posting of a civil servant form part of the terms and conditions of service under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a civil servant invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge a departmental transfer order?
- Sajid S/o Noor Ahmed vs The State2022 SHC 370 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the convictions of the appellants for kidnapping for ransom, police encounter, and illegal weapon possession. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence regarding the kidnapping, the impact of delayed FIR registration, and the reliability of identification parades and weapon recoveries. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through the testimony of the abductee, which was deemed natural and confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by Call Detail Records and weapon recoveries. The Court affirmed that kidnapping for ransom is constituted by the act of abduction for extortion purposes; actual payment of ransom is not a prerequisite. Furthermore, the Court established that delay in FIR registration is not fatal when adequately explained by the victim's family's search efforts. It reiterated that the testimony of a single reliable witness is sufficient for conviction, and identification parades, while useful, are not mandatory when the victim has had prolonged exposure to the accused. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the trial court's judgment.
Questions settled- Is the actual payment of ransom money a necessary ingredient to constitute the offence of kidnapping for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does a delay in the registration of an FIR automatically render the prosecution's case doubtful in kidnapping for ransom cases?
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness if the court finds the witness to be reliable and confidence-inspiring?
- Is the holding of an identification parade a mandatory requirement of law to establish the identity of the accused in a criminal trial?
- Sajid Rehman and Another vs The State2022 MLD 1966 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for transporting a large quantity of charas and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the appellants had conscious possession and knowledge of the narcotics recovered from the vehicle they were traveling in, and whether the absence of independent mashirs vitiated the recovery. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions, holding that the prosecution successfully established guilt through consistent police testimony, prompt lodging of the FIR, safe custody and transmission of the recovered contraband, and positive chemical reports. The court laid down that under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, once recovery is proven from a vehicle under the control of the accused, the burden shifts to them to disprove knowledge or possession, and that courts must adopt a dynamic approach rather than acquitting drug offenders on technical grounds.
Questions settled- Whether the burden of proof shifts to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 once the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle in their control is established?
- Can the evidence of police witnesses be relied upon for conviction in narcotics cases in the absence of any proved enmity against them?
- Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by virtue of Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 affect the validity of a recovery made without independent mashirs?
- Whether courts should adopt a dynamic approach in narcotics cases rather than acquitting accused persons on technicalities?
- Sajid Plastic Factory vs Federation of Pakistan and two others2022 SHC 310 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-03Read full judgment →
- Sajid Mehmood vs Mst. Shazia Azad and others2022 SCP 362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld a Family Court decree. The petitioner, in a suit for recovery of dower and dowry articles, had voluntarily offered to be bound by the respondent's special oath regarding the disputed items. The respondent accepted, took the oath, and the Family Court subsequently decreed the suit based on that evidence. The petitioner later sought to resile from this offer, arguing that the case should have been decided on merits rather than the special oath. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that once a party voluntarily offers to be bound by the special oath of the opposite party and that offer is accepted, a binding agreement is formed. Under the Oaths Act, 1873, such evidence constitutes conclusive proof of the matter stated. The Court affirmed that a party cannot unilaterally withdraw from such an offer absent sufficient cause, as the agreement creates a binding contract. The decision reinforces that special oath proceedings, when properly conducted, are valid and enforceable, precluding the party who made the offer from challenging the resulting judgment.
Questions settled- Can a party who has voluntarily offered to be bound by the special oath of the opposite party resile from that offer after it has been accepted?
- Does the Oaths Act, 1873 apply to proceedings before the Family Court?
- Is a decision based on a special oath considered conclusive proof of the matter stated under the Oaths Act, 1873?
- Does the exclusion of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 in Family Court proceedings invalidate the use of special oaths?
- Sajid Ali vs The State and 5 others2022 PLD Lahore 55 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition challenged the orders of the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, which authorized the exhumation and post-mortem examination of the deceased, Ghulam Bibi. The petitioner contended that the applicant, a sister-in-law of the deceased, lacked the locus standi to seek exhumation and that the lower courts failed to follow proper procedure. The core legal question was whether an application for the exhumation of a dead body under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is restricted to legal heirs or if it can be filed by a stranger. The Court held that the primary objective of the law is to ascertain the cause of death in cases of unnatural or suspicious circumstances. It ruled that Section 176(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not impose a restriction of locus standi on applicants. Consequently, a Magistrate may order exhumation based on reasonable suspicion, even upon the request of a stranger, to ensure the criminal machinery is properly set in motion. The impugned orders were upheld.
Questions settled- Does Section 176(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 restrict the right to apply for the exhumation of a dead body to legal heirs only?
- Can a Magistrate order the exhumation of a dead body based on the application of a person who is not a blood relative of the deceased?
- Is the existence of reasonable suspicion sufficient for a Magistrate to order the disinterment of a body to ascertain the cause of death?
- Saira Yousaf and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 IHC 140 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra Court Appeal challenges a judgment passed by a learned Single Judge-in-Chambers dismissing a writ petition filed by female teachers working on deputation under the Federal Directorate of Education, Islamabad, who sought permanent absorption under the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973. The core legal question was whether a civil servant on deputation has a vested right to permanent absorption in the borrowing department under the Wedlock Policy or amendments made to the rules. The court held that a civil servant on deputation has no vested right to stay on deputation or seek absorption, and that the borrowing department cannot be compelled to absorb an employee against its will. The court further held that amendments creating exemptions for deputation periods do not confer a right to absorption, and that termination of lien in the parent department does not occur until confirmation in the borrowing department. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant on deputation have a vested right to seek permanent absorption in the borrowing department?
- Whether amendments to the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973 regarding deputation create a right to absorption under the Wedlock Policy?
- Can a borrowing department be compelled to absorb a civil servant on deputation against its needs and desires?
- When does a government servant on deputation lose their lien on a permanent post in their parent office?
- Saira Banaras vs Dr. Raees Ahmed and others2022 MLD 1399 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-12-28Read full judgment →
- Saira Atta vs The Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and others2022 PLC (C.S) 1326 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the re-employment of a retired civil servant (respondent No. 3) by the Government of Balochistan, alleging it violated relevant civil servant laws, rules, and judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan by blocking the promotion rights of serving officers. During the proceedings, the respondents stated that the contract period of respondent No. 3 had already expired and the post stood abolished, rendering the specific grievance infructuous. The Balochistan High Court examined the legal framework governing post-retirement re-employment under Section 14 of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974, Estacode instructions, and established apex court jurisprudence. The Court held that re-employment of retired civil servants must be an exception rather than the rule, permissible only in compelling public interest where qualified substitutes are unavailable, and must not block the legitimate promotion of serving civil servants. The petition was disposed of with directions to the respondent authorities to strictly adhere to the statutory provisions and judicial guidelines in any future appointments.
Questions settled- Whether the re-employment of a retired civil servant is permissible as a routine measure or only as an exception in the public interest?
- Does the re-employment of a retired civil servant against a regular or newly established post violate the fundamental promotion rights of serving civil servants?
- What are the statutory and judicial prerequisites for re-employing a retired civil servant under the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974?
- Saima vs Additional District Judge and others2022 PLD Lahore 214 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-23Read full judgment →
- Saima Batool Zehra and 2 others vs Hamid Hussain2022 MLD 1750 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-02-24Read full judgment →
- Saim Sadiq and others vs Muhammad Asif2022 PLJ Islamabad 12, 2022 MLD 1490 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-18Read full judgment →
- Saifal through legal heirs and another vs Member Board Of Revenue and others2022 YLR 378 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-31Read full judgment →
- Saif-ul-Malook etc vs Election Commission of Pakistan, through, Chief2022 PHC 202, 2022 MLD 1633 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-22Read full judgment →
- Saif Ur Rehman Khan vs Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Nab2022 CLD 413, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 409, 2022 PSC 467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against the dismissal of writ petitions by the High Court, which challenged the initiation of proceedings by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against the petitioner regarding an alleged Ponzi scheme. The petitioner argued that the matter fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) and that NAB proceedings constituted double jeopardy. The Supreme Court held that the NAB's jurisdiction to investigate offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, is distinct from the regulatory jurisdiction of the SECP under the Companies Act, 2017. The Court clarified that the bar of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution does not apply because the ingredients of offences under the NAB Ordinance differ from those under the Companies Act, and the SECP is not a court of law. Furthermore, the Court found the petitioner's request for pre-arrest bail meritless, citing substantial evidence of fraudulent financial activities in personal and company accounts, and affirmed the dismissal of the writ petitions.
Questions settled- Does the initiation of proceedings by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) regarding financial fraud constitute double jeopardy when the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) has already initiated regulatory proceedings?
- Does the existence of regulatory jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 2017, bar the NAB from investigating offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
- Can a person claim the protection of Article 13 of the Constitution against NAB proceedings based on prior administrative or regulatory actions taken by the SECP?
- Is the Supreme Court required to wait for detailed reasons from the High Court before deciding on a petition for leave to appeal against a short order in a bail matter?
- Saif Ud Din vs Muhi Ud Din and another2022 YLR 2215 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-30Read full judgment →
- Saif Power Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 PLJ Islamabad 115 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-06Read full judgment →