Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Sahibzada Haroon Ali Syed vs Additional District Judge and others2022 PLJ Lahore 984 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-12Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Faisal Ali Khan vs Chairman LDA and another2022 PLJ Lahore 366 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-20Read full judgment →
• Sahib Ullah vs State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and anotherPLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 70, 2022 SCMR 1806 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-28
  post-arrest bailjuvenile justicestatutory interpretationdate of offencebailable offencebeneficial interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the denial of post-arrest bail to a juvenile petitioner accused under Sections 302, 324, 212, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was exactly sixteen years of age on the date of the occurrence, was entitled to the statutory benefit of Section 6(3) of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018, or whether the exception under Section 6(4) applied based on his age at the time of arrest. The Supreme Court held that the date of the commission of the offence, rather than the date of arrest, is the material date for determining a juvenile's age and applicable statutory protections. Since the petitioner was exactly sixteen years of age on the date of occurrence, the exception for juveniles 'more than sixteen years of age' under Section 6(4) did not apply. The Court allowed the appeal, converted the petition, and granted bail, reiterating that any ambiguity in criminal law must be interpreted in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the age of a juvenile for the purposes of bail under the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 is to be determined from the date of the commission of the offence or the date of arrest?
  • Does the exception under Section 6(4) of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 apply to a juvenile who is exactly sixteen years of age on the date of the occurrence?
  • How should a court interpret statutory provisions when there are two possible interpretations in a criminal matter involving a juvenile?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahib Shah vs State2022 PHC 458, 2024 PCRLJ 396 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-30
  criminal appealidentification by voicetest identification paradebenefit of doubtnocturnal occurrencefirearm recoveryanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for offences including attempted murder and anti-terrorism charges. The core legal questions involved the credibility of identification by voice during nocturnal hours without a source of light, the legal utility of a test identification parade when the accused was already named in the initial report, and the evidentiary value of recoveries and admissions in a criminal trial. The Peshawar High Court held that identification by voice is a weak piece of evidence, especially in the absence of a corroborative source of light, and that test identification parades are unnecessary and legally flawed when the accused is already nominated by name. The court also reiterated that prosecution must prove its case independently without relying on defence weaknesses or admissions. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the basis of the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is identification of an accused solely by voice considered a weak piece of evidence requiring strong corroboration?
  • Can a test identification parade have legal value when the accused is already named in the initial police report?
  • Does an admission made during the cross-examination by a defence counsel have a binding effect on the accused in a criminal trial?
  • Is the prosecution entitled to take advantage of the weaknesses in the defence case to prove its charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Saghir Ahmed vs The State etc2022 SCP 386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  benefit of the doubtsodomyforensic evidencemedical evidencecriminal appealacquittalocular account
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail petition arises from a judgment wherein the petitioner was convicted under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing sodomy and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment, which was subsequently reduced by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of inconclusive medical and forensic evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner, holding that any ambiguity or inconclusive finding in the forensic report must be resolved in favour of the accused. The key principle laid down is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced, or if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right rather than grace.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inconclusive forensic science agency report can form the basis of a conviction in a criminal case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • How should conflicting interpretations of medical and forensic evidence be resolved in criminal trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Saghir Ahmed vs Ambassador Usa Embassy, Islamabad Pakistan2022 PLD Lahore 138 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-21Read full judgment →
• Safiya Ishaq etc vs Judge Family Court etc2022 LHC 6138 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-16Read full judgment →
• Safeer Ullah & others vs Amin-ur-Rehman & others2022 PHC 434 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →
• Safeer Alias Ali Dino and another vs The State2022 YLR 2034 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-04
  illegal arms possessionbenefit of doubtsafe transmission of weaponsjoint trialconflicting judgmentsSindh Arms Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants were tried and convicted under section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 for the alleged possession of unlicensed pistols. They filed separate criminal appeals before the Sindh High Court challenging their convictions. The core legal questions involved the legality of the trial procedure, the failure of the prosecution to prove safe custody and safe transmission of recovered weapons to the Ballistic Expert, and the necessity of joint trials for connected offshoot cases to avoid conflicting judgments. The High Court held that copying evidence from one case to another was illegal, and the failure to establish safe transmission of the weapons to the Ballistic Expert created serious doubt in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt. The Court further laid down the principle that where an accused is alleged to have used an arm in the commission of an offense triable by a Court of Session, the trial under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 must be held jointly with the main case to prevent conflicting judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution's failure to prove safe custody and safe transmission of a recovered weapon to the Ballistic Expert vitiates the conviction under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013?
  • Does copying or duplicating evidence from one case into another separate trial render the proceedings illegal?
  • Should an offense under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 be tried jointly with the main Sessions case arising from the same transaction to avoid conflicting judgments?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when a circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding their guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Safeer Ahmad vs Mst. Gulshan Bibi and others2022 CLC 634 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
• Safdar Hayat vs The State, etc2022 LHC 3063, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1328 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-15
  fair trialSection 342 CrPCdefence evidenceArticle 10-AQatl-i-Amdcriminal proceduredue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from a trial for Qatl-i-Amd, where the petitioner challenged the trial court’s dismissal of two applications filed after his statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had been recorded. The petitioner sought to rectify his recorded response regarding the production of defense evidence and requested the summoning of Rescue 15 records. The core legal question was whether denying these applications, despite the petitioner's claim of clerical error and the necessity of the evidence for his defense, violated his fundamental right to a fair trial. The High Court held that the trial court’s refusal was unsustainable, as it prejudiced the accused's right to a fair trial. Emphasizing that the accused is a favourite child of law, the court ruled that procedural technicalities should not impede the right to produce defense evidence. The judgment affirmed that Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 mandates a fair trial, which includes the essential right of an accused to present evidence in their defense to disprove charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does the refusal of a trial court to allow an accused to produce defense evidence after a Section 342 CrPC statement violate the right to a fair trial?
  • Is an accused entitled to rectify a clerical error in their statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 mandate that an accused be provided an opportunity to produce evidence in their defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali alias Subtain vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 584 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-20
  murderbenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidence contradictiondelay in FIRacquitted co-accusedcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Safdar Ali alias Subtain, under Section 202(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a private complaint in a murder case. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of delayed FIR reporting, inconsistencies between medical and ocular evidence, and the principle of extending the benefit of doubt when co-accused with identical roles have been acquitted. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to inordinate unexplained delay in the FIR, doubtful presence of eyewitnesses who suffered no injuries, contradiction with medical evidence regarding the number of firearm wounds, unproven motive, and tainted evidence vis-à-vis acquitted co-accused. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version?
  • Can eyewitness testimony be relied upon when it stands in direct conflict with the medical evidence regarding the number of firearm injuries?
  • Whether evidence disbelieved against an acquitted co-accused can be safely utilized to convict another co-accused without independent corroboration?
  • Does the prosecution fail to establish its case if multiple circumstances create doubt regarding the guilt of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Safaidullah & others vs Gul Dad2022 PHC 376 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• Saeed Babar and Muhammad Shahid Rauf vs Federation of Pakistan and 04 others2022 SHC 122 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-11
  regular promotionacting chargeofficiating chargevested rightscivil servantsdirect recruitment quotaregularization
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Class IV employees seeking regular promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) after having served on an acting or look-after charge basis for over a decade. The core legal question was whether employees continuously serving on higher posts against direct recruitment quotas on an acting or officiating charge basis for extended periods can claim regular promotion and confirmation. The Sindh High Court allowed the petition, holding that departments cannot exploit employees by keeping them on acting charge indefinitely and that long-serving officiating employees who meet the requisite criteria are entitled to regular promotion and its consequential benefits. The court laid down the principle that rules providing for acting charge appointments must be used bona fide and cannot be invoked to perpetuate maladministration or deny legitimate regularization to employees performing duties against vacant posts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee serving on an acting or officiating charge basis against a higher post for a prolonged period acquires a right to regular promotion?
  • Can a government department indefinitely keep employees on an acting charge basis against posts meant for direct recruitment?
  • Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan apply to constitutional petitions seeking regularization based on the principle of equality and prior judgments?
  • Are employees who meet the eligibility criteria and qualify departmental tests entitled to confirmation as regular promotees?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Anwar alias Noor Muhammad etc vs Member Colonies Board of Revenue Punjab etc2022 LHC 7218 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Saeed Akhtar vs Mst.Bilqees Bibi etc2022 PHC 524 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-25Read full judgment →
• Saeed Akhtar and 2 others vs Muslim Commercial Bank Pakistan Ltd. and 42022 CLD 1523 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-22Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1018 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-02-11
  narcotics transportationrecovery from vehiclepossession of charaspolice witnessessafe custody of contrabandpresumption of guiltappeal against conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the transportation of eight kilograms of charas concealed in secret cavities of a vehicle driven by him, resulting in a sentence of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal questions addressed involve whether the driver of a vehicle can be held legally responsible and in possession of narcotics recovered from the vehicle, whether the non-joinder of private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invalidates a recovery under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, and whether the prosecution successfully proved safe custody and the chain of custody of the recovered contraband. The Balochistan High Court held that the driver of a vehicle is presumed to be in control and possession of the vehicle and its contents, that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act excludes the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony remains credible in the absence of proven enmity. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Is a person driving a vehicle held responsible for the transportation and possession of narcotics found concealed within it?
  • Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 exclude the mandatory joining of private independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the uncorroborated testimony of police officials be relied upon for conviction in narcotics cases in the absence of proven enmity?
  • Does Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 shift the onus to the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt once the prosecution discharges its initial burden?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed vs Mudasir Ali2022 SHC 282 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-15Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 PLD Sindh 508 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-22Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad, etc vs Muhammad Naeem, etc2022 LHC 2233 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-22Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Rasheed and another vs Mst. Uzma Rizwan and 10 others2022 CLC 492 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
• Sadia Iqbal vs Umar Nasim Ahmed etc2022 PLJ Lahore 580 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-08Read full judgment →
• Sadia Iqbal vs Umar Nasim Ahmed and another2022 YLR 2114 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-08Read full judgment →
• Saddam Hussain and another vs The State2022 MLD 377 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-05-13
  post-arrest bailjuvenile offenderprohibitory clausetheftcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No. 36/2019 registered under Sections 380 and 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of juvenile petitioners to post-arrest bail when charged with offences not falling within the prohibitory clause, alongside the applicability of Section 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail. The court held that juvenile accused detained for offences not punishable with death are entitled to release on bail under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, and that offences not falling within the prohibitory clause warrant the grant of bail as a rule, with refusal being an exception.

  Questions settled

  • Whether juvenile accused are entitled to post-arrest bail under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 when charged with offences not punishable with death?
  • Does an offence under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the ambit of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the grant of bail the general rule in cases where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadam Hussain and another vs The State2022 YLR 1589 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-03-28
  criminal revisionbenefit of doubtprohibition lawrecovery evidencechain of custodyprosecution evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Revision Petition challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar, which upheld the conviction and sentence of the applicants for the possession of liquor under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given the significant procedural lapses and evidentiary contradictions. The Court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions regarding the recovery, the sealing of evidence, the chain of custody, and the timeline of the incident. Furthermore, the failure to examine key witnesses and the unexplained delay in sending samples to the chemical examiner created substantial doubt. The Court held that when prosecution evidence is unreliable and contains dishonest improvements, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the applicants, establishing the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient to warrant acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a conviction sustainable when prosecution witnesses have made dishonest improvements in their testimony?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • What is the legal effect of a failure to establish the safe custody and transmission of samples to the chemical examiner?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when there are material contradictions between the complainant and the mashir regarding the recovery proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadaf Sharjeel and another vs National Accountability Bureau (Sindh)2022 YLR 2441 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-18
  Exit Control Listpre-arrest bailfundamental rightsreview jurisdictionflight riskfreedom of movementaccountability reference
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought a review of a High Court order that had placed their names on the Exit Control List (ECL) as a condition for granting pre-arrest bail in a National Accountability Bureau reference. The petitioners argued that their fundamental rights to travel and conduct business were unduly restricted, noting that they had previously traveled abroad with court permission and returned on time. The National Accountability Bureau opposed the application, arguing that the order was not reviewable and that the petitioners posed a flight risk. The Court held that it possesses the inherent power to review its own orders to meet the ends of justice and that such reviews are decided on the merits of each case. Finding no evidence that the petitioners were a flight risk—given their deep roots in Pakistan, the presence of their properties, and their history of compliance—the Court determined that maintaining their names on the ECL for an indefinite period, especially given the trial's slow progress, violated their fundamental rights. Consequently, the Court ordered the removal of the petitioners' names from the ECL, subject to their appearance before the trial court when required.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have the inherent power to review its own order placing an accused person's name on the Exit Control List?
  • Can the placement of an accused's name on the Exit Control List be maintained indefinitely when the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future?
  • Is the right to travel abroad as guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 absolute for an accused person in a criminal case?
  • Does the existence of property and family ties within the country mitigate the risk of an accused absconding while on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabtain Haider vs The State2022 SCP 266, 2022 SCMR 2012 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-21
  grave and sudden provocationhonour killingdiminished liabilitySection 302(c) PPCsentence mitigationcriminal appealocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition challenged a High Court judgment maintaining the petitioner's conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Altaf Saqib. The core legal question was whether the act, committed after the petitioner discovered the deceased in a compromising position with his sister, constituted premeditated murder or a killing under grave and sudden provocation attracting Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the evidence established the murder occurred under the impulses of grave and sudden provocation, distinguishing this from premeditated honour killings. The Court clarified that the statutory phrase in the name or on the pretext of honour implies premeditation, whereas grave and sudden provocation involves a loss of self-control. Consequently, the Court converted the conviction to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. The principle laid down is that the defence need only provide a glimpse of truth to support its version, and distinct legal provisions exist for honour-based premeditated killings versus spontaneous acts triggered by grave provocation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the phrase in the name or on the pretext of honour in the first proviso to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply to killings committed under grave and sudden provocation?
  • What is the standard of proof required for the defence to establish a version of events in a criminal trial?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the murder is committed under the impulse of grave and sudden provocation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain, etc vs Mehboob Hussain, etc2022 LHC 3819 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-25Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain vs The State through Advocate General and 4 others2022 YLR 2487 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-06-02
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtpresumption of innocenceburden of proofabductionZinacriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an acquittal appeal filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Additional Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Muzaffarabad, which acquitted the respondents of charges related to abduction and Zina. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had provided sufficient, cogent evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence and justify overturning the trial court's acquittal. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding the prosecution's case riddled with inconsistencies. The victim's testimony regarding abduction was contradicted by medical evidence showing no signs of Zina, and the existence of a valid Nikahnama and free-will affidavit further undermined the allegations. The Court reaffirmed that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution to prove its case beyond any shadow of a doubt. Furthermore, it emphasized that an acquittal order creates a double presumption of innocence, which cannot be interfered with unless the judgment is found to be perverse, arbitrary, or fanciful. The slightest doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal order create a double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal order that is not perverse, arbitrary, or fanciful?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case beyond any shadow of a doubt in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabeen Asghar etc vs Province of the Punjab etc2022 LHC 6801 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-20
  safe motherhoodmaternity leavefundamental rightsconstitutional petitioncontractual employeesright to lifehuman dignitywrit of mandamus
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by female contractual teachers seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the authorities to grant them 90 days of paid maternity leave, which had been verbally refused under the Internship/Retainership Policy, 2014. The core legal question was whether working women, including contractual employees, have a fundamental right to safe motherhood and maternity leave, and whether an executive policy omitting such provisions is void to the extent of its inconsistency with fundamental rights. The Lahore High Court held that safe motherhood is an inalienable fundamental right protected under Article 9, Article 14(1), and Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and that maternity leave is its essential subset. The Court ruled that fundamental rights override contractual terms and restrictive executive policies, making the constitutional petition maintainable despite the petitioners' contractual status. The key principle laid down is that the right to safe motherhood and maternity leave is a guaranteed fundamental right that cannot be denied by any state policy or contract.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right to safe motherhood and maternity leave constitutes a fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 maintainable by a contractual employee for the enforcement of fundamental rights?
  • Can an administrative policy deny maternity leave to working women merely because it lacks a specific enabling provision?
  • Does the denial of maternity care and leave violate the guarantees of human dignity and equality under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Saba Sarwar vs Govt. of Punjab, etc.2022 LHC 6521, 2022 [M] CLR 1606 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-21Read full judgment →
• S.I/P.O Muhammad Sibtan Khan vs S.S.P, M-2 (North), NHMP, South Bound,2022 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 89 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service appealminor penaltydisciplinary proceedingsdue processfact-finding inquiryspeaking orderFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal was filed before the Federal Service Tribunal against the imposition of a minor penalty of forfeiture of two years of service upon the appellant, a police official, by the respondent authority, which penalty was subsequently upheld in a departmental appeal. The core legal question revolved around whether the mandatory procedure prescribed under the disciplinary rules was followed before awarding the penalty, specifically concerning the necessity of a speaking order of determination, a formal inquiry or show-cause notice, and due process. The Tribunal held that the authority failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Rule 7 of the governing rules, as no formal determination with reasons was recorded, no regular inquiry was ordered, and no proper show-cause notice was issued without invoking valid exceptions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned and appellate orders and remanded the case for a de novo inquiry. The key principle laid down is that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the determination to hold or dispense with a formal inquiry require a speaking order based on judicial determination, and strict adherence to mandatory procedural rules is a prerequisite for a valid penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the decision of an authority to initiate a regular inquiry or proceed otherwise under the Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules requires a speaking order with reasons?
  • Can an employee be subjected to a penalty without the observance of mandatory procedure and the issuance of a show-cause notice under Rule 7 of the National Highways and Pakistan Motorway Police (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules 2016?
  • Whether procedural irregularities that violate fundamental rights and mandatory rules render the disciplinary proceedings void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Zafar Shah And Company through Partner vs Securities And Exchange2022 CLD 164 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-08Read full judgment →
• S. Akmal (deceased) through Legal-Heirs, etc vs Model Town Cooperative2022 LHC 3369, 2025 YLR 841 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-06Read full judgment →
• Rustam Ali Shar vs The State2022 SHC 448, 2024 PCRLJ 68 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-29
  murderbenefit of doubtpolice witnessessafe custody of weaponappraisal of evidencecriminal appealacquittalarms act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act 2013, resulting in sentences of life imprisonment and ten years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The core legal questions addressed involve the reliability of uncorroborated police testimony in a case based on spy information without associating private independent witnesses, the legal effect of missing chain of custody regarding weapon recovery and forensic transmission, and the application of the principle of benefit of doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case through unimpeachable evidence, noting fatal flaws in the failure to join independent witnesses despite availability, overwriting in police station daily diaries, and failure to prove safe custody and transmission of crime weapons to forensic experts. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and sentences, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant and directing his immediate acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of police officials alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a capital punishment case when independent witnesses available at the scene were not associated or examined?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove safe custody and safe transmission of recovered weapons to the forensic expert vitiate the evidentiary value of the weapon?
  • How many circumstances creating a reasonable doubt are required to entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  • Does the failure of an accused to explain unnatural circumstances under the same roof shift the burden of proof to relieve the prosecution from proving its case on its own strength?
  Read full judgment →
• Rukhsar vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & four others2022 PHC 360 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →
• Rukhsana Bibi vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 1806 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-21
  pre-arrest bailconspiracyabetmentmala fidecriminal conspiracyinvestigation processfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by an accused woman in a murder case registered under sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, accused of hatching a conspiracy, was entitled to pre-arrest bail despite being nominated in the FIR. The court held that the prosecution failed to provide solid incriminating material to substantiate the conspiracy charge, noting that the FIR and statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 lacked specific details regarding the time, place, or nature of the alleged conspiracy. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The judgment reaffirms that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy to protect citizens from the abuse of police power. It establishes that where incriminating material is absent, the accused's implication and the police's insistence on arrest are sufficient indicators of mala fide, negating the requirement for independent proof of malice. Furthermore, allegations of conspiracy must be based on concrete evidence, not mere surmises or conjectures, to justify the denial of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of incriminating material against an accused in a conspiracy charge constitute sufficient grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is independent proof of mala fide required to obtain pre-arrest bail when the prosecution lacks evidence connecting the accused to the alleged offence?
  • Can a court rely on surmises or conjectures regarding conspiracy to deny pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 influence the court's approach to granting pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Rozi Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary2022 PHC 614 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Roshan Ali Lakhan and others vs The D.G. Petroleum and others2022 CLC 284 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-19Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali Kanasro vs Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority2022 PLJ Karachi 21 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sharafat Khan vs StatePLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 66 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-28
  narcotic drugsrepresentative samplechemical examinercontrol of narcotic substancesfair trialcriminal liabilitysentencing reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the alleged possession of 25,000 grams of charas, packaged in 25 packets containing 14 slabs each, and sentenced to life imprisonment, which was upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether drawing a sample from each packet rather than from every individual slab constitutes a valid representative sample of the entire seized narcotic drug for the purpose of establishing criminal liability for the bulk quantity. By a majority of two to one, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, holding that a representative sample must be drawn from each and every physically independent and separate unit (every slab) of the recovered narcotic drug to satisfy the requirements of a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan and binding precedent. The Court laid down the principle that the prosecution can only burden an accused with criminal liability corresponding to the weight of the specific units actually sampled and tested by the Government Analyst.

  Questions settled

  • Must a representative sample of a narcotic drug be drawn from every physically separate and independent unit of the seized contraband to establish liability for the entire quantity?
  • Does the failure to draw samples from each individual slab within a larger packet limit the accused's criminal liability only to the quantity of the samples actually tested by the Government Analyst?
  • Does testing a sample from each packet rather than each individual slab violate the right to fair trial and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Mehmood vs The State2022 SCP 232, PLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 157, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 965, 2022 SCMR 1882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-31
  murderocular accountsummoning of material witnessunrecorded statementmedical evidencemotivesentence mitigationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court that maintained the appellant's conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but altered his death sentence to imprisonment for life. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot and killed the deceased following a previous dispute. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular account, the admissibility and use of testimony from a witness whose statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was not recorded, the court's power to summon material witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the impact of unproved motive on the quantum of sentence. The Supreme Court held that trustworthy ocular testimony corroborated by medical and forensic evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction even if the motive is unproved, and that courts possess wide discretionary and mandatory powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to examine any witness essential for a just decision regardless of prior police recording under Section 161. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the basis of an ocular account when the prosecution's alleged motive remains unproved?
  • Whether the testimony of a witness whose statement was not recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be relied upon during trial?
  • What is the scope of the trial court's power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon a witness whose name was omitted from police investigations?
  • Does a minor discrepancy between medical evidence and ocular testimony warrant the rejection of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Romex International vs The Federation of Pakistan, etc2022 LHC 2059 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-15Read full judgment →
• Romex International vs The Federation of Pakistan and others2022 PTD 760 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-15Read full judgment →
• Rohan Ahmad vs The State, etc2022 SCP 170, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 656, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 262, 2022 SCMR 1511 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-29
  post-arrest bailblasphemycyber crimePrevention of Electronic Crimes Actbanned books
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged an order of the Lahore High Court refusing them bail in a case registered under section 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 and sections 295B, 298C, 120B, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of sharing blasphemous content, desecrated translations of the Holy Quran, and banned books online via WhatsApp and Google Drive. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioners made out a case for post-arrest bail considering the evidentiary material available on record. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that at the bail stage, courts should not delve into deep scrutiny or appreciation of evidence, and since prima facie sufficient material existed connecting the petitioners to the alleged crime, they were not entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that deeper appreciation of evidence and factual aspects must be left to the trial court, and bail should be refused where prima facie connection with the offense is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the court should delve into deep scrutiny of evidence at the bail stage?
  • Are petitioners entitled to post-arrest bail when prima facie material connects them to the dissemination of blasphemous content?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ullah vs The State2022 LHC 4286 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-31
  juvenile trialfair trialdue processremand for retrialexplosive substancesanti-terrorismhasty trialjuvenile justice system
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the Punjab Arms Ordinance, 2015, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, rendered by the Anti-Terrorism Court. During the trial, upon an ossification test, the appellant was declared a juvenile, yet the trial court proceeded to frame a fresh charge and recorded the testimonies of fifteen prosecution witnesses on the very next day in undue haste, replicating verbatim the evidence from the joint trial of co-accused without complying with mandatory provisions such as supplying copies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Lahore High Court examined whether the juvenile appellant was denied his fundamental right to a fair trial, due process, and protections under Islamic law, international conventions, and the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The Court held that the trial court's hasty procedure and mechanical recording of evidence prejudiced the juvenile accused and violated fundamental rights. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for a de novo trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether recording statements of all prosecution witnesses in a single day after framing charge against a juvenile constitutes a denial of a fair trial?
  • Whether a trial court can adopt verbatim evidence from a joint trial after separating the case of a juvenile accused?
  • What are the criteria for an appellate court to remand a criminal case on account of procedural irregularities committed during trial?
  • Whether failure to supply copies of statements under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 prejudices a juvenile accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Shoukat Silk Factory and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and Justice Division and 3 others2022 CLD 1516 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Saeed Mughal vs Rizwan Saeed Mughal Appellate Election2022 PHC 484 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rizwan Hussain vs The State and another2022 IHC 24 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-30
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clausetentative assessmentFIR delaycriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 25/2022 registered under Section 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Bhara Kahu, Islamabad. The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail after the Additional Sessions Judge declined his initial application. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the conflicting versions of the occurrence—the complainant alleging assault with a rod, while the police investigation suggested the complainant's injuries resulted from a fall due to rain. The Court held that the case warranted further inquiry, noting that the medico-legal report was obtained on the day of the occurrence, yet the FIR was registered two days later, casting doubt on the prosecution's narrative and suggesting potential consultation. Furthermore, the Court observed that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause and the petitioner had no prior criminal record. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the observations were tentative and did not prejudice the trial court's final determination of guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a two-day delay in FIR registration, where the medico-legal report was obtained immediately, constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Is an offence punishable by a term not falling within the prohibitory clause a relevant factor for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a court confirm pre-arrest bail when police investigation findings contradict the complainant's version of the incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Haider and others vs The State2022 PCRLJ 908 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-15
  pre-arrest bailpolice officialsfurther inquirydeeper appreciation of evidencecriminal trialbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three criminal bail applications filed by police officials seeking confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants were accused of murder following the death of a suspect during a police chase, while the applicants maintained the death resulted from a traffic accident. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to confirmation of bail given the conflicting evidence and the nature of the allegations. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to confirmation of bail, finding that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that the object of bail is to secure the accused's presence at trial rather than to punish, and that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage. As no misuse of the bail concession was demonstrated and the prosecution's case required further investigation, the interim pre-arrest bails were confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Is deeper appreciation of evidence permitted at the bail stage?
  • What is the primary objective of granting bail in the criminal justice system?
  • When should a court confirm interim pre-arrest bail based on the requirement for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ellahi & another., Muhammad Sufian Abbasi & 3 others., Faraz Ahmed & another., Bar Association Murree vs Province of Punjab & 10 others2022 LHC 7533, 2024 PLD Lahore 379, 2024 PLJ Lahore 434 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-07Read full judgment →
• Rizwan and 3 others vs The State2022 MLD 716 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-19
  pre-arrest baildelayed FIRgeneral allegationspresumption of innocencecriminal procedurebail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal bail application filed by four applicants seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in connection with an FIR registered for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the significant delay in FIR registration and the nature of the allegations. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Court observed that the FIR was registered with an inordinate delay of 40 days without any plausible explanation from the prosecution, despite the proximity of the police station to the place of occurrence. Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to assign any specific role to the individual applicants, relying instead on general allegations of joint assault. The Court reaffirmed the principle that mere heinousness of an offence does not justify denying bail to an accused, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that unexplained delay in lodging an FIR is fatal to the prosecution's case at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can bail be denied solely on the basis of the heinous nature of the alleged offence when no specific role is attributed to the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to the presumption of innocence at the bail stage despite the severity of the charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Akhtar alias Razi Bawa and another vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 995 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-18
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionbenefit of the doubtmurder referenceres gestaecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Sections 367-A, 377, and 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing them to death and imprisonment, alongside a murder reference. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—including last seen evidence, wajtakkar, extra-judicial confession, medical evidence, and recoveries—was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case, as all pieces of evidence were weak, tainted, lacked independent corroboration, and did not meet the strict legal standards required for circumstantial evidence. The court laid down the principle that multiple weak or tainted pieces of evidence cannot corroborate one another, that circumstantial evidence must be wholly incompatible with the innocence of the accused, and that an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case. The appeal was allowed, convictions and sentences were set aside, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether last seen evidence and wajtakkar are considered weak types of evidence requiring independent corroboration?
  • Can one tainted piece of evidence legally corroborate another tainted piece of evidence?
  • What are the essential characteristics required for a statement to be admissible as part of the res gestae under the law of evidence?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession alone sufficient to sustain a conviction in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ahmad and 3 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1000 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-19
  criminal revisioninjured witnessfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusevidentiary valuerevisional jurisdictionacquittalcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the petitioners for various offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a sole injured witness, the presumption of truthfulness attached to such witnesses, and whether conviction can be sustained without independent corroboration in cases of admitted enmity. The High Court held that while the presence of an injured witness is generally accepted, their testimony is not automatically truthful and must be appraised on its own merits. Finding that the prosecution’s case relied on a witness who made material improvements, provided a delayed statement, and was involved in admitted enmity, the Court found the evidence unreliable. Furthermore, applying the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the petitioners. The judgment affirms that the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, must reappraise evidence to ensure the correctness and legality of lower court findings, especially where material contradictions exist.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be recorded based on the testimony of a sole injured witness?
  • Does the presence of an injured witness at the crime scene automatically grant their testimony the stamp of truth?
  • Can the testimony of a sole inimical injured witness be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the reappraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Riffatullah, Drawing Master, Municipal Inter College (Boys), Peshawar vs Secretary to Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Local Govt. Elections & Rural Development Department, Peshawar & others2022 PHC 60, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 97 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rifat Bibi vs Abid Shah and another2022 P Cr. L J 52 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-16
  Criminal Acquittal AppealUnnatural offencesSodomyLimitation periodCondonation of delayMedical jurisprudenceDouble presumption of innocencePenetration
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Acquittal Appeal challenged the trial court's judgment acquitting the respondent of charges under Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the limitation period for filing the appeal and whether the prosecution successfully established the offence of sodomy. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding it time-barred as it was filed fifty-three days after the impugned judgment without an application for condonation of delay, violating the requirement to explain each day of delay. On merits, the Court found the prosecution's case deficient. The victim’s testimony lacked necessary corroboration, and the medical evidence was inconclusive, failing to establish penetration, which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court emphasized that acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, reversible only if the judgment is blatantly perverse. Furthermore, the medical examination failed to adhere to established medical jurisprudence protocols. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine for being time-barred and devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal filed after the statutory limitation period without an application for condonation of delay maintainable?
  • Is penetration a necessary ingredient to constitute the offence of unnatural offences under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction for sodomy be sustained on the solitary statement of the victim without corroborative medical evidence?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Rida Fatima vs Pakistan Medical Commission, etc2022 [M] CLR 1108 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-20Read full judgment →
• Riaz vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 896 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-01
  criminal appealmurderchance witnessbenefit of doubtpost-mortem delayQatl-i-Amdocular evidenceabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for committing Qatl-i-Amd. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on chance witnesses, alleged medical discrepancies, and the absence of motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found the eye-witnesses to be unreliable "chance witnesses" whose presence at the crime scene was not established, and noted that the significant delay in conducting the post-mortem examination indicated the FIR was fabricated. Furthermore, the court observed that the assailants' failure to harm the complainant, despite being in close proximity, contradicted natural human conduct under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Additionally, the court ruled that abscondence alone cannot sustain a conviction and that the recovery of the weapon was inconclusive. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt is a right, not a concession, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt warrants acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of an accused's abscondence?
  • Does a significant delay in conducting a post-mortem examination create an inference that the FIR was fabricated?
  • Is the testimony of a witness who claims to be present at the crime scene reliable if they are a 'chance witness' and their presence is not corroborated?
  • Does the failure of assailants to harm a witness present at the scene of a crime contradict natural human conduct under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz vs Mst. Raeela and others2022 PCRLJ 1472 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-16
  hostile witnessunfavourable witnesscriminal revisioncross-examinationprosecution witnessjudicial discretionfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the trial court's order declaring a prosecution witness hostile and allowing his cross-examination by the prosecution. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in declaring a witness hostile after cross-examination had already commenced, and whether the prosecution could re-examine its own witness under such circumstances. The Peshawar High Court held that a witness can only be declared hostile during examination-in-chief, not after cross-examination by the defense, as doing so would undermine the purpose of cross-examination. The Court emphasized that there is a critical distinction between a hostile witness—one who deliberately resiles from their statement and damages the calling party's case—and an unfavourable witness, who merely provides testimony contrary to the prosecution's interest. The Court ruled that without evidence of deliberate suppression of truth or changed loyalty, the discretion to allow a party to cross-examine their own witness cannot be exercised. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, reaffirming that the testimony of a witness, even if unfavourable, remains part of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Can a witness be declared hostile after they have already been cross-examined by the opposing party?
  • What is the legal distinction between a hostile witness and an unfavourable witness?
  • Does the testimony of a witness declared hostile become entirely inadmissible in court?
  • Does the court have the authority to direct a person present in court to provide handwriting samples for comparison?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Shah vs The State, etc.2022 LHC 7296, 2024 YLR 1369 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-27
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaydelay in conclusion of trialabscondancemurderfurther inquiryhardship bail
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a murder and attempted murder case registered under Sections 302, 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with subsequent additions. The Lahore High Court held that while the petitioner had no case for bail on merits due to prima facie establishment of allegations, he was entitled to post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of undue delay in the conclusion of the trial under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court ruled that the delay caused by court-ordered stays and the pursuit of legitimate legal remedies by the accused cannot be attributed to him, and that a statutory right to bail cannot be defeated merely on account of previous abscondance or the gravity of the offense. The petition was consequently allowed, granting bail subject to the furnishing of appropriate securities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be denied bail on statutory grounds of delay in trial when the delay is occasioned by court-ordered stays rather than acts of the accused?
  • Does time consumed by an accused in pursuing a legitimate legal remedy, such as a juvenile declaration application, constitute intentional delay disentitling them to statutory bail?
  • Can previous abscondance serve as a sole ground to refuse post-arrest bail when the accused has otherwise made out a case for bail as a matter of right under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • From which date should the detention period be calculated for the purpose of computing statutory delay in the conclusion of a trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Muhammad vs The State etc2022 PHC 166 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-17
  FATA Interim Governance Regulation 2018de novo trialright to fair trialcondonation of delayCouncil of Eldersfundamental rightscriminal appealjurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and twenty-five-year sentence for murder, imposed by the Assistant Commissioner/ADM, Wana, under the FATA Interim Governance Regulations, 2018 (FIGR-2018). The appellant argued that the trial was illegal due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner following the merger of FATA into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The Court first addressed the issue of limitation, holding that the right to appeal against a conviction is a fundamental right under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and that technicalities regarding delay should not deprive a convict of this right. On the merits, the Court found that while the FIGR-2018 was valid at the time of the impugned order, the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirement of Regulation 13, which mandates referring the matter to a Council of Elders for findings on facts before sentencing. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanded the case for a de novo trial before the Sessions Judge, South Waziristan, and granted the appellant bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right to appeal against a conviction constitute a fundamental right under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Is a conviction under the FATA Interim Governance Regulation, 2018, valid if the mandatory procedure of referring the case to the Council of Elders under Regulation 13 was not followed?
  • Can a court condone a delay in filing a criminal appeal if the appellant is a convict whose fundamental rights are at stake?
  • Are the provisions of Section 16 of the FATA Interim Governance Regulation, 2018, regarding sentencing, independent of the procedural requirements of Regulation 13?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Muhammad and another vs Asad Ullah Khan and 19 others2022 P LC (C.S.) 461 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-29
  illegal appointmentadditional chargecivil court jurisdictionrevisional jurisdictionmandatory procedureregularisation of servicerecruitment policy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a concurrent judgment of the lower courts which maintained the partial decree declaring the appointment of the petitioners as illegal and without lawful authority. The core legal questions involved whether an officer holding a temporary additional charge to look after administrative affairs could make fresh appointments, whether appointments made without advertising vacancies or involving the employment exchange are sustainable, and whether a civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters. The Peshawar High Court held that an officer with a mere additional charge lacks the legal authority to make appointments, and recruitment done in clear violation of mandatory prescribed rules without advertisement or competition is void ab initio. The Court further held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without establishing a jurisdictional error or illegality. The key principle laid down is that where a statute or law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner and not otherwise, and appointments made by incompetent authorities without following transparent recruitment procedures confer no vested right or protection through regularisation.

  Questions settled

  • Can an officer holding a temporary additional charge to look after routine official matters make fresh public appointments in a district?
  • Whether appointments made without advertising vacant posts or routing them through the employment exchange are legally sustainable?
  • Does a civil court possess jurisdiction to challenge public appointments made in violation of recruitment rules?
  • Can the principle of locus poenitentiae be invoked to protect appointments made by an incompetent authority through a flawed procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Magsi and others vs The State2022 MLD 1787 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-03
  capital punishmentright to counselfair trialdue processexamination-in-chiefremand of caseabsence of defense counsel
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, including murder. During the trial, the examination-in-chief of the primary eye-witness and complainant was recorded in the presence of the accused but in the absence of their defense counsel. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether recording the examination-in-chief of a material witness in a capital case in the absence of the accused's counsel vitiates the trial and warrants a remand. The court held that in capital cases, it is mandatory for an accused to be represented by legal counsel during the examination-in-chief to ensure due process and a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. The ratio laid down is that the absence of a defense counsel during examination-in-chief prejudices illiterate or unrepresented laymen accused, leading to an unfair trial. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and sentences, remanding the matter back to the trial court to re-record the complainant's testimony in the presence of counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Whether recording the examination-in-chief of a prosecution witness in a capital case in the absence of the accused's counsel violates the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the absence of legal representation during the examination-in-chief of a crucial witness in a capital trial necessitate setting aside the conviction and remanding the case?
  • Is it mandatory under Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the accused to be assisted by a pleader during the recording of evidence in capital offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain vs The State and others2022 PCRLJ 1793 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-27
  damanexecution of sentencemaintainability of appealsurrender of convictinherent powerscriminal revisionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged orders passed by subordinate courts regarding the reimbursement of a Daman amount deposited by a convict who was subsequently acquitted on appeal. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of an appeal against conviction when the sentence, specifically the payment of Daman leading to release, had already been executed, and whether an appellate court can entertain an appeal without the convict having surrendered or having had their sentence legally postponed under Section 382-A or suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that once a convict pays the Daman and secures release without fulfilling the requirements of statutory postponement or suspension pending appeal, the sentence stands executed, rendering any subsequent appeal incompetent and any ensuing acquittal order patently illegal. The court laid down the principle that a convict must be properly on bail under Section 382-A or confined during the pendency of an appeal for it to be entertainable, and that depositing Daman under Section 337-Y of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 signifies acceptance of the conviction, barring inconsistent appellate challenges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against conviction is maintainable when the sentence of Daman has already been paid and the convict released without statutory postponement or suspension?
  • Does the payment of Daman under Section 337-Y of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bar a convict from subsequently challenging their conviction by way of appeal?
  • Can a High Court exercise revisional and inherent powers to set aside an illegal acquittal order passed on an incompetent appeal?
  • What are the legal requirements for the postponement or suspension of a sentence of imprisonment pending an appeal under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain vs Chairman, Plat, Lahore etc2022 LHC 8035, 2024 PLC 265 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-06
  back benefitsreinstatement in servicemisconduct inquirystanding orders ordinancelabor appellate tribunaltermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses three writ petitions arising from labor disputes concerning the termination, reinstatement, and back benefits of a security guard employed by a sugar mill. The core legal questions involved whether a workman could be dismissed for alleged misconduct (absence from duty) without following the mandatory inquiry procedure prescribed under the law, whether past termination orders could be used against an employee in subsequent proceedings, and whether back benefits are the rule upon unconditional reinstatement. The court held that the employer violated Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, by terminating the petitioner without a show-cause notice or inquiry, and that past set-aside terminations are non-existent. Furthermore, the court held that back benefits follow as a rule upon reinstatement unless gainful employment is proven. The petitions filed by the employee were accepted, the Labour Appellate Tribunal's order denying back benefits was set aside, the employer's counter petition was dismissed, and the Labour Court was directed to implement the original reinstatement judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employer can dismiss a workman for alleged misconduct without holding an inquiry as required under Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Whether a previous termination order that was set aside by a labor court can be revived and used against an employee in subsequent disciplinary proceedings?
  • Is the grant of back benefits the default rule upon an employee's unconditional reinstatement in service, and what constitutes an exception?
  • Does the mere pendency of a writ petition before a higher forum operate as an automatic stay against the implementation or execution of a lower forum's order?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz and another vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 1070 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-14
  murder trialocular evidencechance witnesscriminal appealacquittalappreciation of evidencedishonest improvementabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account and whether the circumstantial evidence sufficiently supports the conviction. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the eye-witnesses were "chance witnesses" whose presence at the scene was not established, and their testimonies suffered from glaring contradictions and dishonest improvements. Furthermore, the court noted that the medical evidence suggested a single assailant, contradicting the prosecution's claim of two shooters. The court emphasized the principle that once an ocular account is disbelieved, other evidence, even of high value, is insufficient for conviction on a capital charge. Additionally, the court reiterated that motive is a double-edged weapon and that abscondence, while corroborative, cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable primary evidence. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, setting aside the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of abscondence when the primary ocular evidence is disbelieved?
  • Does the presence of dishonest improvements in a witness's testimony render their entire statement unreliable?
  • Is the testimony of a chance witness sufficient to support a conviction if their presence at the scene is not convincingly established?
  • Does the principle of motive as a double-edged weapon apply when the prosecution fails to prove the primary charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs The State, etc2022 PSC (Crl.) 317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-25
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausecorruptioncriminal appealstatutory delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had refused post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the accused to post-arrest bail when the alleged offences fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and when the accused has been incarcerated for a considerable period with no further recoveries pending. The court held that since the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause and nothing remains to be recovered, the case falls under the principle that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. Consequently, the court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and admitted the appellant to bail subject to furnishing requisite security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when the alleged offences fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of any expected recovery from the accused justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is the refusal of bail an exception in cases where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs Nasir Ahmad2022 LHC 6235 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace2022 PCRLJ 1067 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-24
  medical negligencespecial enactmentEx-Officio Justice of Peacecriminal proceedingshealthcare malpracticejurisdictionPunjab Healthcare Commission Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace directing the police to record a criminal case against the petitioner regarding the death of a child, which the complainant alleged was due to medical negligence. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are maintainable for allegations of medical negligence in light of the specialized regulatory framework provided by the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010. The Court held that the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010, is a special enactment that prevails over general criminal law regarding healthcare negligence. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, ruling that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for medical negligence without first exhausting the remedies and procedures prescribed under the special law. The key principle laid down is that where a special statute governs professional negligence in healthcare, that specific forum must be approached, and criminal law cannot be set into motion by the police until the specialized body has determined professional misconduct or negligence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010 prevail over the general criminal law regarding allegations of medical negligence?
  • Can criminal proceedings be initiated for medical negligence without exhausting the remedies provided under the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010?
  • Is an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace authorized to direct the registration of a criminal case for medical negligence in the presence of a special regulatory statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali and Others vs Yaseen and Others2022 MLD 1825 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-02Read full judgment →
• Re: Apprehension of Undermining the Criminal Justice System by Persons in Authority. Prima Facie Violation of Article 10a, 25 and 4 of the Constitution vs N/A2022 SCP 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-27
  criminal justice systemdue processrule of lawhigh profile casestransfer and postingExit Control ListFederal Investigation AgencyNational Accountability Bureau
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon an order initiating proceedings regarding the apprehension of undermining the criminal justice system by persons in authority, concerning potential prima facie violations of constitutional guarantees. The core legal question involves safeguarding the integrity, sanctity, and fairness of the criminal justice system in the investigation, prosecution, and trial of high-profile cases, particularly regarding the transfer, posting, and removal of investigating and prosecuting officers in the Federal Investigation Agency and National Accountability Bureau, as well as the removal of persons from the Exit Control List. The Court held that notices be issued to key federal and provincial functionaries, including the Secretary Ministry of Interior, Director General FIA, and Chairman NAB, to submit written statements and explanations on these matters. Furthermore, the Court ordered that status quo be maintained, no prosecution cases be withdrawn, and investigating and prosecuting officers in high-profile cases not be transferred, posted, or removed until the next date of hearing. The key principles laid down emphasize the enforcement of constitutional guarantees of the rule of law, due process, and equal protection under Articles 4, 10A, and 25 of the Constitution to protect the criminal justice system.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the transfer, posting, and removal of investigating and prosecuting officers in high-profile cases can be restrained to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system?
  • What constitutional guarantees under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 ensure the fairness and sanctity of the criminal justice process?
  • Can prosecution cases be arbitrarily withdrawn while proceedings concerning the undermining of the criminal justice system are pending before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Reverend Jimmy Mathew vs Bishop Peters and others2022 PLD Peshawar 118 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
• Reruling by the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly under Articl_e2e667652022 PLD Supreme Court 574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-07
  vote of no-confidencedissolution of assemblyjudicial reviewparliamentary proceedingsconstitutional supremacysuo motutrichotomy of powersdoctrine of necessitynational security
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan exercised its suo motu jurisdiction under Article 184(3) to review the constitutionality of a ruling by the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly. On April 3, 2022, the Deputy Speaker dismissed a resolution for a vote of no-confidence against the Prime Minister, citing national security concerns and alleged foreign interference under Article 5. Following this dismissal, the Prime Minister advised the President to dissolve the National Assembly, which was promptly executed. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Speaker's ruling was protected from judicial review by Article 69 and whether it violated the mandatory voting procedure prescribed in Article 95. The Court held that while procedural irregularities are immune from judicial scrutiny, substantive constitutional violations are not. The Court found the Deputy Speaker's ruling unconstitutional as it bypassed the mandatory vote required by Article 95(2). Consequently, the Prime Minister remained subject to the bar in Article 58(1), rendering his advice to dissolve the Assembly invalid. The Court set aside the dissolution, restored the National Assembly, and ordered the vote of no-confidence to proceed.

  Read full judgment →
• Reliance Petrochem Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan2022 SHC 416 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-30Read full judgment →
• Reliance It Solutions (Private) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 P C T L R 255 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-17Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs The State (A.N.F.)2022 YLR 1639 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-31
  narcotics traffickingControl of Narcotic Substances Actburden of proofsafe custodychemical examiner reportcriminal appeallife imprisonmentrecovery of narcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the Special Court (C.N.S.) for transporting 1000 kilograms of charas. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the appellant, as the sole occupant of the vehicle, could be held liable for the narcotics recovered from secret cavities. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. It held that under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, once the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle under the accused's control is proven, the burden shifts to the accused to demonstrate ignorance of the contents, which the appellant failed to do. The Court affirmed that police evidence is reliable absent proof of enmity, and minor contradictions do not vitiate the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the Court emphasized a dynamic approach to narcotics cases, rejecting technical acquittals, and confirmed that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded for offenses under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 once the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle under the accused's control is proven?
  • Is Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to offenses under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics trafficking be sustained solely on the testimony of police witnesses if no enmity is proven?
  • Is life imprisonment the mandatory sentence for the recovery of narcotics exceeding 10 kilograms?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Khaliq vs The State2022 YLR 2082 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-10-28
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryrule of consistencyjuvenilityabscondencecontradictory evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from a criminal case involving charges under sections 324 and 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident of indiscriminate firing. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given significant contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, the release of co-accused under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the petitioner's claim of juvenility. The Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from material discrepancies, including contradictory statements between the victim and eye-witnesses, an unexplained delay in recording the victim's statement, and the dubious nature of the alleged weapon recovery. Furthermore, the Court applied the rule of consistency, noting that co-accused with similar allegations had already been released. The Court affirmed that when a case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused, bail is a matter of right, not grace, and mere abscondence does not automatically disentitle an accused to this relief. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, finding the case fell within the scope of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the abscondence of an accused automatically disentitle them to bail when the case otherwise warrants further inquiry?
  • Is bail a matter of right or grace when a criminal case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused?
  • Can the rule of consistency be applied to grant bail when co-accused with similar roles have been released by the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The State2022 LHC 5184 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-21
  Qatl-i-Amdchance witnessesbenefit of the doubtburden of proofcriminal appealadverse inferencerecoverypost-mortem delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the Qatl-i-Amd of his wife. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account, the impact of failing to examine natural witnesses present at the scene, the effect of delayed FIR registration and post-mortem examination, and whether the burden of proof shifts to an accused when a death occurs within their home. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It found the eye-witnesses to be "chance witnesses" who failed to justify their presence, noted that the failure to examine the deceased's children (natural witnesses) created an adverse inference, and concluded that the delayed FIR and post-mortem indicated a fabricated narrative. The Court affirmed that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution and does not shift to the accused merely because a death occurred in their house. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the revision petition for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine natural witnesses present at the scene of the crime create an adverse inference against the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the presumption that a death occurred within their house, or does the burden of proof remain on the prosecution?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon, in the absence of independent witnesses as required by law, possess evidentiary value?
  • Is the benefit of the doubt a matter of grace or a right of the accused when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehman Medical College And Others vs Wafa Gul and others2022 SCMR 36 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-09
  house job stipendprivate medical collegesmedical graduatesstatutory interpretationelimination of exploitationequal treatmentmedical commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from a common judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning the quantum of stipend payable to medical graduates doing house jobs in private medical colleges. The core legal question was whether private medical colleges are legally bound to pay house job stipends equivalent to those paid in public sector institutions under the governing legal framework, despite the repeal of earlier ordinances and the existence of private contracts. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that medical graduates are entitled to a reasonable stipend commensurate with their services and that private colleges must pay a stipend not less than the amounts applicable in public colleges, as mandated by statute. The Court ruled that disparity in stipends constitutes impermissible discrimination and that statutory provisions override private agreements, further noting that denial of a reasonable stipend violates the anti-exploitation command of Article 3 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether private medical colleges are legally bound to pay house job stipends equal to those paid in public sector institutions?
  • Does a disparity in the payment of stipends to medical internees of private colleges compared to public colleges constitute discrimination?
  • Can a mutually settled private agreement between medical graduates and private colleges override statutory arrangements regarding stipends?
  • Does the denial of a reasonable stipend for house jobs violate the constitutional command against exploitation under Article 3 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehman alias Shina son of Sher Muhammad, r/o Khan Abad Razar District2022 PHC 30 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-07Read full judgment →
• Rehan-Ud-Din vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 321 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-07
  pre-arrest bailcompromisecriminal procedureanticipatory bailcomplainant statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 13/2020, registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, and 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, at Police Station ACE, District Multan. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail following a compromise reached between the petitioner and the complainant. During the proceedings, the complainant appeared in person, confirmed the existence of a compromise, and submitted an affidavit and an 'Iqrarnama' (agreement) stating he had no objection to the confirmation of the bail. The Deputy District Public Prosecutor did not vehemently oppose the petition. Upon consideration of the complainant's categorical statement and the submitted documents, the Court allowed the petition. The holding confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, subject to the petitioner furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000 with one surety. The judgment affirms that a compromise between the parties, where the complainant expresses no objection, serves as a valid ground for confirming pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-arrest bail be confirmed solely on the basis of a compromise between the petitioner and the complainant?
  • Does the lack of objection from the complainant regarding a compromise constitute sufficient grounds for the confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehan Khalid vs Mst. Uzma Nawaz and 3 others2022 MLD 272 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-26Read full judgment →
• Rehan Hamid vs Federation of Pakistan &others2022 SHC 480 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-26
  territorial jurisdictioncause of actionrejection of plaintreturn of plaintcontractual employeewrongful terminationcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and damages filed by a former Chief Executive Officer of Hyderabad Electric Supply Company challenging his removal from service via a notification issued by defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 filed an application seeking rejection or return of the plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the Sindh High Court at Karachi possessed territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit where the defendant company operates in Hyderabad, the termination notification originated from Hyderabad, and the plaintiff performed his employment duties there, notwithstanding the plaintiff's contention that cause of action arose in Karachi because he received or came to know of the notification while in Karachi. The court held that the Sindh High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, ruling that mere knowledge of an adverse order at a transit or temporary location does not constitute a cause of action, and that jurisdiction is determined by the place where the defendant carries on business or where the notification originates and the employment contract is performed. Consequently, the court ordered the return of the plaint for presentation before the proper forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plaintiff's mere knowledge or receipt of an impugned termination notification at a temporary location constitute a cause of action for establishing territorial jurisdiction?
  • Where does the cause of action arise in a suit challenging a termination order issued by an employer?
  • Whether a court lacking territorial jurisdiction can return a plaint for presentation before the proper forum under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Reham Dad vs Province of Punjab through Its Chief Secretary, etc2022 LHC 2385 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-24Read full judgment →
• Regarding Poor Conditions Of Rcd Highway: In the matter of vs Not2022 SCMR 61 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-13
  National Highway Authoritypublic safetyroad infrastructurehighway maintenancepolice deploymentharassment of travelersfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the poor condition of the RCD Highway (N-25) and the lack of essential infrastructure and safety measures on national highways in Pakistan. The Supreme Court examined a report submitted by the National Highway Authority (NHA), which revealed that a significant majority of the N-25 highway remains in poor or fair condition despite substantial maintenance expenditures. The Court held that the NHA's performance is unsatisfactory, noting the absence of proper road signage, reflectors, and roadside tree plantations, which poses a constant risk to public safety. Furthermore, the Court addressed the failure to deploy Highway Police on N-25 as required by law and directed the Inspector General of National Highways and Motorways Police to explain this omission. The Court also took cognizance of complaints regarding the harassment of travelers by the Frontier Constabulary and Coast Guard. The holding emphasizes the state's obligation to ensure safe travel, proper maintenance of infrastructure, and the professional conduct of security agencies, directing the NHA to ensure the highway reaches a 100% good condition standard.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Highway Authority have a legal obligation to ensure national highways are maintained in a safe and fully functional condition?
  • Is the failure to deploy Highway Police on national highways a violation of the National Highways and Safety Ordinance 2000?
  • Can security agencies like the Frontier Constabulary and Coast Guard be held accountable for harassing travelers during routine checks on national highways?
  Read full judgment →
• Reference by the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan under Article 186 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 vs Not2022 SCP 384, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-09
  presidential referencereko diq projectforeign investmentpublic assetsconstitutional advisory opinionmines and mineral developmentarbitration settlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This presidential reference under Article 186 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, sought the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court regarding the constitutional and legal validity of the proposed implementation agreements for the reconstitution of the Reko Diq project and the enactment of the Foreign Investment (Protection and Promotion) Bill, 2022. The core legal questions involved whether previous judgments, public policy, or the Constitution bar the federal and provincial governments from entering into negotiated agreements for public assets, and whether the proposed legislation would be constitutional. The Supreme Court held that the disposal of public assets through a negotiated agreement is permissible when supported by rational grounds and law, and that the agreements and the legislative measures do not violate the Constitution or previous rulings. The Court laid down that while a competitive process is the ordinary rule for disposing of public assets, it is not invariable, and the executive can enter into negotiated settlements backed by law, transparency, and expert due diligence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Constitution of Pakistan places any bar on the disposal of public assets through a negotiated agreement rather than a competitive process?
  • Whether the Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) (Amendment) Act, 2022 is within the legislative competence of the Balochistan Assembly?
  • Whether the proposed Foreign Investment (Protection and Promotion) Bill, 2022 would be valid and constitutional if enacted after provincial resolutions under Article 144?
  • Whether the agreements for the reconstitution of the Reko Diq project violate or conflict with the Supreme Court's earlier judgment in Abdul Haque Baloch's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Raziq Jan vs Iqbal Khan2022 PHC 130 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-27
  murder referencecircumstantial evidenceexhumationpointation memojudicial confessiondeath penaltycorpus delictidisappearance of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of criminal appeals by convicts Raziq Jan and Ghulam Rasool, along with a Murder Reference, arising from convictions under Sections 302(b), 364-A, and 201 PPC for the murder, kidnapping, and burial of an 8/9-year-old minor. The prosecution's case rested purely on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's pointation of the burial site leading to the exhumation of the dead body, voluntary judicial confessions, and medical evidence proving ligature strangulation. The Peshawar High Court held that discovery of a dead body pursuant to an accused's disclosure is admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and does not require compliance with Section 103 Cr.P.C. regarding local witnesses. Furthermore, remanding an accused to police custody after recording a confession does not automatically invalidate a voluntary confession. The Court affirmed Raziq Jan's conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b) PPC, and Ghulam Rasool's conviction under Section 201 PPC. However, the Court acquitted Raziq Jan under Section 364-A PPC due to lack of proof of abduction, and under Section 201 PPC on the principle that the actual killer cannot be concurrently convicted for causing disappearance of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the discovery and recovery of a dead body on the pointation of an accused require compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does remanding an accused back to police custody after the recording of a confession render that confession inherently inadmissible or involuntary?
  • Can an accused who is convicted as the principal offender for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be simultaneously convicted under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing the disappearance of evidence of that murder?
  • Can a conviction and sentence of death be sustained entirely on circumstantial evidence corroborated by the pointation and recovery of the deceased's body?
  Read full judgment →
• Raza Khan vs Haji Javaid and others2022 PLJ Peshawar 205 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-25Read full judgment →
• Raza Khan vs Haji Javaid & others2022 PHC 304 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-25Read full judgment →
• Raza Ali Khattak and 3 others vs Vice Chancellor, Abdul Wali Khan2022 PLJ Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rasool Bux, A.S.I. (Retd.) and 2 others vs The State2022 YLR 402 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-11
  defective investigationAnti-Terrorism Actsummary proceedingsfair trialdue processpolice misconductcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, which convicted three police officials under Section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for alleged defective investigation and misconduct. The core legal question was whether a trial court is empowered to summarily convict and sentence police officers under Section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, without framing a formal charge or conducting a proper trial, based solely on a show-cause notice and an unconditional apology. The High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, ruling that the summary procedure adopted by the trial court was unwarranted. The Court clarified that proceedings under Section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, do not dispense with the fundamental requirement of a fair trial. Unless an act constitutes contempt in the face of the court, a proper charge must be framed to allow the accused to defend themselves. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that due process cannot be bypassed through summary proceedings, even when an apology is tendered.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court convict police officers under Section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, without a formal trial?
  • Does an unconditional apology submitted in response to a show-cause notice constitute a waiver of the right to a trial?
  • Is the summary procedure under Section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, applicable to cases not involving contempt in the face of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashim Khan vs Fida Hussain & two others2022 PHC 378 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
• Rashida Begum vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir2022 PLC (C.S.) 1511 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-03-21
  incharge appointmentservice lawvoid ab initiostatutory appointmentadministrative justicewrit jurisdictionseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged a notification appointing a respondent as 'incharge' Divisional Director (Schools), arguing it bypassed the statutory appointment procedure. The core legal question was whether the government could circumvent the 'Azad Jammu and Kashmir Elementary and Secondary Education Department Administrative Cadre (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2018' by making 'incharge' appointments instead of following the prescribed promotional or transfer mechanisms. The High Court held that the impugned notification was void ab initio as it violated the mandatory statutory scheme. The court emphasized that 'incharge' appointments cannot be used to bypass regular appointment procedures. The ratio established that where the law prescribes a specific manner for performing an act, it must be performed in that manner, and any deviation renders the act a nullity. Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that past illegal appointments justified the current one, reaffirming that two wrongs do not make a right. The official respondents were directed to fill the post strictly in accordance with the 2018 Rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can an 'incharge' appointment be used to bypass statutory rules for regular appointments?
  • Does the principle that 'two wrongs do not make a right' apply to challenges against illegal service appointments?
  • Is an appointment made in violation of the prescribed statutory procedure void ab initio?
  • Must a public authority perform administrative functions strictly in the manner prescribed by law?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Mehmood vs The State2022 IHC 222, 2024 PCRLJ 300 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-24
  narcotics possessionsafe custody of samplesreduction of sentencerecovery witnessControl of Narcotic Substances Actcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the alleged possession of 1375 grams of charas and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involve evaluating the sufficiency and credibility of police-based recovery evidence, the reliability of safe custody and transmission of samples, and the discretionary power of the court regarding the quantum of sentence. The Islamabad High Court maintained the conviction, holding that the positive chemical examiner report and recovery established the offense, but considered mitigating factors such as the appellant being a first offender, the less harmful nature of the substance, and time already served. Consequently, the High Court upheld the conviction while reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the positive report of a Chemical Analyst is sufficient to substantiate a narcotics conviction despite minor discrepancies in witness testimonies?
  • Can the appellate court reduce a narcotics sentence to the period already undergone based on mitigating circumstances such as being a first offender?
  • Does the absence of public witnesses invalidate a recovery effected by police officials during routine patrolling?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Hussain vs Additional District Judge, Islamabad (East) and others2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 218, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 32, 2022 PSC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-02
  custody of minorswelfare of the minorguardianshippreferential right of fatherGuardians and Wards Actminor's preferencefamily law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment denying the petitioner-father custody of his three minor children, which had been granted to the maternal grandfather. The core legal question was whether the father’s preferential right to custody under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, is absolute or subject to the "welfare of the minor" principle. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the "welfare of the minor" is the paramount consideration and the ground norm of the Act. While the father possesses a preferential right, it is not absolute and may be bypassed when strong, compelling circumstances exist. The Court found that the petitioner had failed to discharge his moral and legal obligations toward his children, and that transferring custody would likely cause psychological harm, given the children's expressed preference and the circumstances surrounding their mother's death. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the welfare of the minors necessitates maintaining their current custody with the maternal grandfather, establishing that the father's right is subordinate to the minors' overall well-being.

  Questions settled

  • Is the father's preferential right to the custody of minor children absolute under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
  • What is the paramount consideration for a court when appointing a guardian for a minor?
  • Can a court deviate from the father's preferential right to custody based on the welfare of the minor?
  • Does the minor's expressed preference regarding their custodian constitute a relevant factor for the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ali Noonari vs Mst. Zoya Noonari & another2022 SHC 62 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-21Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmed, Rabia Bibi vs The State etc2022 LHC 7745 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-11
  fornicationrapeprivate complaintacquittalcriminal revisionbenefit of doubtprocedural irregularityCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal and connected criminal revision arise from a trial court judgment convicting the appellant under Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for fornication, despite the initial charge being under Section 376(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the conviction under Section 496-B without compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 203-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether a criminal revision is maintainable against an acquittal when a statutory appeal remedy was available. The Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with contradictions, unexplained delays, and lack of credible evidence, failing to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a conviction for fornication is unsustainable without a specific complaint filed under Section 203-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the Court affirmed that revision proceedings cannot be used to challenge an acquittal when an appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was the appropriate remedy. The appeal was accepted, the conviction set aside, and the revision petition dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court convict an accused for fornication under Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without a formal complaint lodged in accordance with Section 203-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a criminal revision maintainable against an acquittal when the aggrieved party had the statutory right to file an appeal against acquittal?
  • Does a trial court's decision to convict an accused for a lesser offence while implicitly rejecting the major charge amount to an acquittal of the major charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad and others vs Nazar Hussain and others2022 SCMR 1842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-03
  rejection of plaintcivil court jurisdictionconsolidation of holdingsouster of jurisdictionpartial rejection of plaintregistered sale deedspecial tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the dismissal of a civil revision by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the rejection of the plaintiffs' plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core legal question concerned whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under Section 26 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, when a suit challenges consolidation proceedings alongside a declaration of ownership based on a registered sale deed. The Supreme Court held that where a suit contains multiple prayers and the civil court's jurisdiction is barred as to some but not all reliefs—or where actions of special tribunals are challenged on grounds of jurisdiction, fraud, or mala fides—partial rejection of a plaint is not permissible and the civil court retains jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed and the suit remanded for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of a civil court is barred under Section 26 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, in respect of matters within the purview of consolidation authorities?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when it contains multiple prayers and jurisdiction is barred for only some of them?
  • Under what circumstances can a civil court examine the validity of an order passed by an administrative authority or special tribunal despite an ouster clause?
  • Is partial rejection of a plaint permissible under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Aftab Bukhari, Section Officer Planning & Developments2022 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 123 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  inter-se seniorityservice tribunalcivil servantsrule-making powerestoppel by conductprobationers trainingfinal passing out examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellants' service appeal regarding the determination of inter-se seniority. The core legal question was whether the inter-se seniority of civil servants appointed as Assistant Commissioners, Assistant Superintendents of Police, and Section Officers should be governed by the older merit lists of the Public Service Commission or by subsequently framed rules and statutory amendments requiring the completion of specialized training and passing a final examination. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir held that the appellants accepted the conditions incorporated into their appointment notifications, failed to challenge the prior 2016 rule amendments, and participated in the training and examinations, thereby rendering them estopped by conduct from challenging the new rules. The Court laid down the principles that rule-making is the sole prerogative of the competent authority under the parent statute, that a candidate cannot challenge selection or service rules after participating in proceedings and failing to achieve desired results, and that service appeals challenging rules prematurely without an adverse application are incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the inter-se seniority of probationers can be determined on the basis of training and final passing out examination under amended rules rather than initial merit alone?
  • Is a civil servant who participates in an examination or training process estopped by conduct from subsequently challenging the rules governing that process?
  • Whether the government is competent to frame or amend service rules under Section 23 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976?
  • Can a service appeal be maintained against departmental rules when no adverse order has been passed or applied to the disadvantage of the civil servant?
  Read full judgment →