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.

• Rashid Aftab Bukhari, Section Officer Planning & Development2022 SC AJ&K 5 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  service seniorityestoppel by conductcivil servantsrule-making powerprobationary periodservice tribunalinter-se seniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the determination of inter-se seniority for civil servants appointed as Assistant Commissioners, Assistant Superintendents of Police, and Section Officers. The appellants contended that their seniority should be governed by the rules in force at the time of their advertisement and selection, rather than the subsequent 2016 and 2019 amendments which linked seniority to the successful completion of training and final passing out examinations. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants were estopped by their own conduct. Having accepted the terms of their appointment—which incorporated the amended conditions—and having participated in the training and examination process without prior objection, they could not subsequently challenge the rules after failing to achieve desired results. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that the government possesses the inherent prerogative under Section 23 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, to frame or amend service rules, provided they do not conflict with the Constitution or parent legislation. Additionally, the Court noted that challenging rules prematurely, absent an adverse application, is not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant who participates in a selection process and training is estopped from challenging the rules governing seniority after failing to achieve desired results?
  • Does the government have the authority to amend service rules regarding seniority under the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976?
  • Can a civil servant challenge the vires of service rules before they have been interpreted or applied to their disadvantage?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Abbas vs Deputy Director First Investigation Agency (FIA) Multan2022 PLJ Lahore 657 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-21Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmed vs Pakistan Telecommunication Limited & another2022 SHC 326 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-20
  wrongful dismissalmaster and servantdamagesdisciplinary inquirycivil suitservice regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This lawsuit seeks a declaration, permanent injunction, and damages following the removal of the plaintiff, an Assistant Divisional Engineer (BS-18) in Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), from service. The core legal questions involve the maintainability of a civil suit regarding terms and conditions of employment governed by master-servant principles, the lawfulness of the disciplinary proceedings and termination without statutory competence, and the plaintiff's entitlement to damages in lieu of reinstatement. The court held that while the company lacked statutory service rules barring constitutional petitions, the termination was unlawful and without jurisdiction as it violated procedural regulations and followed a previously concluded inquiry where the plaintiff was exonerated. Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to general and special damages for wrongful dismissal, mental agony, and loss of future earnings. The key principle laid down is that where an employee is wrongfully dismissed in violation of procedural rules and natural justice, and chooses to forego reinstatement, the court may award fair compensation as damages reflecting economic loss, loss of reputation, and physical or mental stress.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil suit for damages is maintainable against a corporate entity lacking statutory service rules where the relationship is governed by master and servant?
  • Can an employer initiate a second disciplinary inquiry on the same charges after an employee has already been exonerated in the first inquiry report?
  • Is an employee entitled to general and special damages for wrongful termination when dropping the prayer for reinstatement in service?
  • What criteria should a court apply in determining the quantum of damages for mental agony, loss of reputation, and future economic loss resulting from unlawful dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmed vs Additional District Judge etc2022 PLJ Lahore 573 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-25Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmad alias Sheeda vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1065 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-03
  criminal appealqatl-i-amdacquittalfalsus in uno falsus in omnibuseye-witness testimonybenefit of doubtmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  The criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, Rasheed Ahmad alias Sheeda, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for Qatl-i-Amd, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life by the trial court, while three co-accused were acquitted. The core legal question was whether eye-witness testimony disbelieved by the trial court against the acquitted co-accused could still be relied upon to sustain the conviction of the appellant under the principle of sifting grain from chaff. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The court held that where eye-witnesses have been specifically disbelieved regarding co-accused, their testimony cannot be relied upon to the extent of the appellant, noting that the principle of sifting grain from chaff is no longer applicable in Pakistan following the adoption of the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

  Questions settled

  • Can eye-witness testimony disbelieved against acquitted co-accused be relied upon to sustain the conviction of a remaining appellant?
  • Is the legal principle of sifting the grain from the chaff applicable in criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan?
  • Does the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus form an integral part of criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasheed A. Razvi vs Mrs. Sakina Suleman and another2022 PLD Sindh 403 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-14Read full judgment →
• Rashed alias Chand and others vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 664 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-25
  capital sentence referencejudicial confessionidentification paradeanti-terrorismmitigating circumstancesres gestaecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and capital sentence reference concern the conviction of three appellants for the murder of an Additional District and Sessions Judge. The appellants were convicted by an Anti-Terrorism Court under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of retracted judicial confessions, the validity of identification parade proceedings, and the determination of appropriate sentencing for co-accused who did not fire the fatal shot. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants through consistent ocular evidence, valid identification parade proceedings, and voluntary judicial confessions that were corroborated by forensic evidence. The Court affirmed the conviction of all appellants but modified the sentences of two appellants who did not fire the fatal shot, converting their death sentences to life imprisonment based on mitigating circumstances. The principle laid down is that while a retracted confession can form the basis of a conviction, it must be voluntary and truthful, and that co-accused who did not commit the fatal act may be entitled to lesser punishment than the principal offender.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession form the basis of a conviction if it is found to be voluntary and truthful?
  • Does the mere relationship of an eye-witness to the deceased invalidate their testimony?
  • Can the death sentence of a co-accused be converted to life imprisonment if they did not fire the fatal shot?
  • Does the assassination of a judicial officer in relation to their official duties fall within the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasham Din vs The State through Advocate-General of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and another2022 P Cr. L J 146, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 611 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-07-16
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelayed identificationmurder trialprolonged incarcerationcriminal revisiontentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the dismissal of a bail application by the High Court in a murder case involving sections 34, 302, and 452 of the Azad Penal Code and section 20 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the delayed identification of the accused, who was a known neighbor to the complainant, and the prolonged incarceration without trial conclusion. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry. The Court reasoned that the failure to nominate a known neighbor in the FIR or initial statements, followed by a delayed identification parade, created reasonable doubt regarding the accused's involvement. The Court established that where a tentative assessment of evidence suggests a need for further inquiry, bail must be granted, and it cannot be withheld merely because a trial is in progress. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that indefinite incarceration without trial is legally impermissible.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to nominate a known neighbor in an FIR, followed by a delayed identification, constitute a case for further inquiry?
  • Can bail be withheld solely on the ground that a trial is in progress?
  • Is prolonged incarceration without the conclusion of a trial a valid ground for granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasham Din vs State through Advocate-General of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and another2022 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 28 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Rashad Imran vs The State and another2022 SCMR 1304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-26
  pre-arrest bailsubstandard meatpublic healthcognizable offensenon-bailable offensecriminal law procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered against the petitioner for the transportation of substandard meat on a meatless day. The petitioner, intercepted by a Veterinary Officer, was found in possession of 500 kg of beef and 60 kg of mutton that were unfit for human consumption and bore fake stamps. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the seizure and the nature of the alleged offense. The Court held that the seizure of a significant quantity of unhygienic meat, verified by inventories and the presence of a Magistrate, established a prima facie case. The Court found no evidence of mala fides or oblique motives on the part of the State functionary. Consequently, the Court declined to grant pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the mechanics of criminal law, which mandate arrest in cognizable and non-bailable offenses, should not be suspended without compelling grounds. The judgment reaffirms that significant evidence of public health endangerment precludes the exercise of discretionary relief in pre-arrest bail matters.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail maintainable when there is substantial evidence of a cognizable and non-bailable offense involving public health?
  • Does the presence of a Magistrate during the seizure of evidence lend credibility to the procedure adopted by State functionaries?
  • Can the mechanics of criminal law requiring arrest be suspended in the absence of mala fides or oblique motives by the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashad Imran vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-26
  pre-arrest bailmeatless daysubstandard foodcognizable offensenon-bailable offensecriminal lawmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Rashad Imran, following the dismissal of his bail application by the High Court. The petitioner was apprehended by a Veterinary Officer while transporting 500 kg of beef and 60 kg of mutton on a meatless day. The confiscated meat was found to be unfit for human consumption, emitting a foul odor, and bearing fake stamps to simulate ante-mortem slaughter. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the seizure and the nature of the offense. The Supreme Court held that the seizure of substandard, hazardous meat on a restricted day, corroborated by official inventories and magisterial oversight, established a prima facie case. The Court found no evidence of mala fide intent by the State functionary. Consequently, the Court declined to grant pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the mechanics of criminal law, which mandate arrest in cognizable and non-bailable offenses, should not be suspended without compelling grounds or evidence of oblique motives.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail available for offenses involving the transport of substandard meat on a meatless day?
  • Does the involvement of a Magistrate in the seizure process lend credibility to the criminal case against an accused?
  • Must an accused demonstrate mala fide intent on the part of the complainant to successfully obtain pre-arrest bail in a non-bailable case?
  Read full judgment →
• Rao Tariq Islam, etc. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2022 LHC 7580 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-11Read full judgment →
• Rao Talib Ali Khan vs Peer Saleem-ud-Din, etc2022 LHC 1777 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-03Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Gulzar and 126 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad and 2 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 454 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-22
  contempt of courtregularization of servicecompliance reportthird-party contractorletter and spiritemployment lawjudicial order enforcement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a contempt application filed against the respondent-company for failing to comply with a previous judgment directing the regularization of the petitioners' services. The core legal question was whether the respondent's compliance report, which excluded certain petitioners based on grounds such as prior termination, death, or third-party contractor status, satisfied the court's earlier directions. The Court held that the compliance report was inadequate and failed to adhere to the 'letter and spirit' of the previous orders. It ruled that the respondent could not use third-party contractor status or other technicalities to deny regularization, as these issues had already been settled by superior court precedents. Consequently, the Court rejected the compliance report. Rather than initiating immediate contempt proceedings, the Court granted the respondent a final two-week opportunity to fully implement the regularization orders, warning that failure to do so would result in the issuance of show-cause notices for contempt under the relevant legal provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer rely on third-party contractor status to deny the regularization of employees after a court has ordered such regularization?
  • Does a compliance report that excludes certain employees based on technical grounds satisfy a court order for general regularization?
  • What is the standard for determining if a court order has been complied with in 'letter and spirit'?
  • Can a court grant a final opportunity for compliance before initiating formal contempt proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Rao Ghulam Mustafa vs The State and another2022 LHC 6497 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-14
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausestatutory interpretationcivil proceedingsrecovery of amount
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 regarding a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. and whether the punishment under Section 489-F PPC allows for imprisonment or fine alternatively. The Lahore High Court held that since the maximum punishment for the offence is three years or fine or both, the case falls outside the prohibitory clause, making bail the rule and refusal the exception. The court further noted that civil remedies for recovery under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were already being pursued and that continued detention would serve no useful investigative purpose. The petition was consequently allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the punishment of imprisonment and fine under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 is disjunctive or conjunctive?
  • Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can bail be refused in a case under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 solely on the ground of a huge disputed amount?
  • Is the pendency of civil proceedings under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 relevant to the grant of bail in criminal cases involving financial disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Rao Fakhar Nawaz vs Superintendent, New Central Jail Bahawalpur and another2022 LHC 6126, 2022 [M] CLR 1497 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rana Tahir Saleem, Muhammad Javaid vs Province of Punjab thr. Chief2022 SCP 358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-23
  police tenurepolitical interferencefundamental rightspublic interest litigationpolice independenceadministrative transfersrule of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional petition challenging the frequent, premature transfers of senior police officials—specifically District Police Officers (DPOs) and the Inspector General of Police—within the Province of Punjab, allegedly driven by political influence. The petitioners contend that such practices violate the tenure protections mandated by the Police Order, 2002, undermine the independence and efficiency of the police force, and negatively impact the criminal justice system and the fundamental rights of citizens to life and liberty. The core legal question is whether the provincial government's failure to adhere to statutory tenure requirements constitutes a violation of fundamental rights and the rule of law. The Supreme Court, finding that the conditions of Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 were met, held that the police force must not be an instrument for vested interests and that integrity and independence are essential. The Court ordered the Provincial Police Officers and Home Secretaries of all provinces and the ICT administration to submit data regarding police tenures over the past eight years to assess compliance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the frequent, premature transfer of police officers violate the statutory tenure protections prescribed in the Police Order, 2002?
  • Can the failure of a provincial government to maintain the independence of the police force be addressed under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction pursuant to Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is the police force prohibited from being utilized as an instrument for the promotion of vested or elite interests?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Tahir Hassan Khan vs Capital Development Authority and others2022 CLC 454 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-03Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Saleem vs Ministry Of Religious Affairs And Interfaith2022 YLR 464 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-06Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Saleem vs Additional District Judge and others2022 PLJ Lahore 246 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-09Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Imran Nasrullah vs The State etc2022 SCP 234, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 947, 2022 SCMR 1946 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-23
  pre-arrest bailcriminal intimidationcivil litigationfurther inquirylibertyproperty dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court denying pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a criminal case involving allegations of trespassing, property damage, and criminal intimidation. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the existence of parallel civil litigation regarding the disputed property and the nature of the alleged offences. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail, converting the petition into an appeal and confirming the bail. The Court reasoned that the existence of pending civil litigation regarding the property title raised the possibility of false implication to exert pressure, necessitating further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court established that liberty is a precious constitutional right not to be curtailed on vague allegations, and that where criminal intimidation is accompanied by a specific overt act, the focus should remain on the overt act itself rather than the intimidation charge.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of pending civil litigation regarding property title justify the grant of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving the same property?
  • When does the provision of Section 506(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 become inapplicable in cases of criminal intimidation?
  • Can a court consider the merits of a case when deciding on a pre-arrest bail application?
  • Does the addition of a non-bailable offence at a belated stage automatically preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Hanif Khan (Deceased) through LRs vs Saddiq Khan2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-14
  jurisdictionimmovable propertyterritorial jurisdictionrendition of accountslimitationforeign propertysuit for recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for recovery of damages and compensation filed in Sahiwal, Pakistan, regarding income generated from an agricultural property situated in California, USA. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the Lahore High Court reversed the decision, holding that Pakistani civil courts lacked jurisdiction and that the suit was time-barred. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether Pakistani courts could exercise jurisdiction under Sections 16 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the subject property was located abroad and the defendant was a permanent resident and citizen of the United States. The Supreme Court held that under Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, suits determining any right or interest in immovable property must be instituted where the property is situated. Since the income claimed was inextricably linked to foreign land and the defendant did not voluntarily reside in Pakistan at the commencement of the suit, the local courts lacked both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction. Furthermore, the suit was filed twenty-eight years after the termination of the parties' financial relationship, making it grossly time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil court in Pakistan has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of income generated from immovable property situated outside Pakistan?
  • Does the occasional visit of a foreign citizen to Pakistan satisfy the requirement of voluntary residence under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to confer personal jurisdiction?
  • Can a suit for recovery of money and rendition of accounts be treated as a decree in personam to bypass the territorial restrictions of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the claim is inextricably linked to foreign land?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Hand Khan (Deceased) through LRs vs Saddiq Khan2022 PSC 1065 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-14
  territorial jurisdictionsubject-matter jurisdictionforeign propertylimitation periodrecovery suitrendition of accountscivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a suit for recovery of money and rendition of accounts, ruling that Pakistani Civil Courts lacked jurisdiction and that the claim was time-barred. The appellants sought compensation for income allegedly generated from property situated in the United States, managed by the respondent. The core legal questions were whether Pakistani courts possessed territorial or subject-matter jurisdiction over a dispute concerning foreign immovable property and whether the suit was filed within the limitation period. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that under Sections 16 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the suit regarding foreign property and involving a defendant residing abroad could not be entertained by Pakistani courts. The Court held that the mere occasional presence of a defendant in Pakistan does not confer jurisdiction when the subject matter and cause of action are situated outside the country. Furthermore, the Court noted the claim was filed decades after the financial relationship ended, rendering it time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Do Pakistani Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain a suit concerning immovable property situated outside Pakistan?
  • Does the occasional presence of a defendant in Pakistan confer jurisdiction on Pakistani courts under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the cause of action arose abroad?
  • Can a suit for rendition of accounts and recovery of money regarding foreign property be maintained in Pakistan if the defendant resides permanently abroad?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Asif Tauseef vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Chairman, Islamabad and others2022 SCMR 1344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-18
  nomination paperselection eligibilityasset disclosurecut-off dateconstitutional jurisdictionright to contest electionsbanking decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that disqualified the appellant from contesting general elections. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly rejected the appellant's nomination papers based on a banking decree passed against his spouse after the statutory cut-off date for asset disclosure. The Supreme Court held that the High Court misapplied the law. The Court clarified that under Section 60(2)(d) of the Elections Act, 2017, candidates are required to disclose assets and liabilities as of the preceding thirtieth day of June. Since the decree in question was issued after this cut-off date, it could not form the basis for disqualification. The Court emphasized that the right to participate in elections is a constitutional right under Article 17 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and that courts must exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction with caution to ensure no suitor suffers injury from judicial acts. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the orders of the Returning Officer and the Election Tribunal which had accepted the appellant's nomination papers.

  Questions settled

  • Does a banking decree passed against a candidate's spouse after the statutory cut-off date for asset disclosure constitute valid grounds for rejecting nomination papers?
  • Is the right to participate in elections a constitutional right under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, reject a candidate's nomination papers based on a misinterpretation of the Elections Act 2017?
  • What is the scope of the duty of courts to ensure that judicial acts do not cause injury to suitors?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Ahmad Tahir vs Mian Muhammad Zia2022 LHC 7116 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-13Read full judgment →
• Rana Masood Iqbal vs Muhammad Ayub Iqbal Rana2022 CLC 1858 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-06Read full judgment →
• Rana Imran Khan vs Imran Aizad2022 LHC 3225 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-14Read full judgment →
• Rana Ghafoor Ali vs Province of Punjab through Secretary Ministry of Environment Government of Punjab and 2 others2022 CLD 962 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-08Read full judgment →
• Rana Abdul Basit Khan vs Province of Punjab and 3 others2022 LHC 8416, 2024 CLC 716 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-27Read full judgment →
• Ramesh Kumar vs The State and another2022 PLD Sindh 155 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-18
  acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocenceSection 265-K CrPCfruitless trialappellate interferencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-South, which acquitted the respondent under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a direct complaint case. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion to acquit the accused at an early stage, and whether the appellate court should interfere with this acquittal. The High Court held that the trial court's power under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C. is broad and intended to prevent fruitless trials when there is no probability of conviction. The Court emphasized that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, and appellate interference is only warranted if the order is perverse, capricious, arbitrary, or based on a gross misreading of evidence. Finding that the trial court's order was well-reasoned and that the appellant failed to demonstrate any such infirmity, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that courts should not fill lacunae in the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a trial court exercise its power to acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an order of acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require a formal application by the accused?
  • What is the standard of review for an appellate court when considering an appeal against an acquittal order?
  Read full judgment →
• Rajesh alias Raju vs The State2022 YLR 1855 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-08
  murder convictiondeath sentence reductionunproven motiveCCTV evidenceforensic scienceQatl-i-Amdmitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the murder of a hospital employee and sentenced to death under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a compensation order under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution's case relied on CCTV footage, medical evidence, and the recovery of a weapon. On appeal, the appellant did not challenge the conviction on merits but sought a reduction of the death sentence. The High Court, upon re-examination, found the conviction sound, noting that the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through reliable CCTV evidence and forensic reports. However, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive (unauthorized ATM withdrawal) with independent evidence. Citing the principle that failure to prove a set-up motive warrants caution in sentencing, the Court upheld the conviction but reduced the death sentence to imprisonment for life, maintaining the compensation order and granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a set-up motive warrant the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can CCTV footage be admitted as evidence under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is the trial court required to act as a gatekeeper for scientific and forensic evidence?
  • Does the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to a sentence reduced from death to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Zahoor Ahmed vs Capital Development Authority through its2022 SCP 184, 2022 SCMR 1411 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-20
  Master PlanCapital Development Authorityland use conversionvested rightsdoctrine of locus poenitentiaeurban planningclimate change adaptationfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petitions and civil revisions challenging notices issued by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) regarding the non-conforming use of their residential properties. The core legal question concerns whether the CDA Board's initial decision to commercialize residential properties was taken with lawful authority and whether it created any vested rights, alongside examining the broader nexus between urban planning and climate change. The Supreme Court held that the CDA lacks the discretionary power to alter land use or deviate from the Islamabad Master Plan without the Federal Government's approval; hence, the initial commercialization decision was void ab initio, and no vested rights accrued to the petitioners. The Court laid down that maintaining adherence to the Master Plan and integrating climate resilience, adaptation, and sustainability into urban planning are constitutional necessities intrinsically linked to the fundamental rights to life, dignity, and property under Articles 9, 14, 18, and 23 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Capital Development Authority has the power to change the status or use of property in breach of the Islamabad Master Plan?
  • Does a decision taken by the Board of the Capital Development Authority in violation of the Master Plan create any vested rights in favour of property owners?
  • Can the doctrine of locus poenitentiae be invoked where a public authority's unlawful decision was never actually implemented?
  • Are adaptation, climate resilience, and sustainability integral to the fundamental rights to life, dignity, and property under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Zahoor Ahmed vs Capital Development Authority through Chairman2022 PLD Islamabad 22 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-07Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Zubair and others vs Government Of Khyber2022 PLD Peshawar 100, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 778 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-07-24
  caretaker governmentelections actadministrative continuityremoval from serviceconstitutional petitionshort-term appointmentsmala fide exercise of power
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the removal of the petitioners from their positions as Law Officers and the subsequent appointment of respondents by the caretaker government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The core legal question was whether the caretaker government possesses the authority under Section 230 of the Elections Act, 2017, to remove existing Law Officers and appoint new ones during its interim tenure. The Court held that the impugned notifications were illegal, void ab-initio, and issued without jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the caretaker government's mandate is restricted to routine, non-controversial, and urgent matters necessary for administrative continuity and facilitating free and fair elections. It determined that Section 230(2)(e) of the Elections Act, 2017, does not grant caretaker governments the power to dismiss or terminate public officials, nor does it permit major appointments. The Court established that the caretaker government is limited to making acting or short-term appointments only when necessary, and the mass removal of Law Officers to replace them with new appointees constitutes a mala fide exercise of power exceeding the statutory mandate.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 230 of the Elections Act, 2017, grant a caretaker government the power to terminate or remove public officials?
  • Is a caretaker government authorized to make major appointments of public officials?
  • What is the scope of the caretaker government's authority regarding administrative continuity during the interim period?
  • Can a caretaker government remove existing Law Officers solely on the basis of a loss of confidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Tahir Ayub vs Muhammad Irfan Qureshi2022 PHC 438 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Owais vs Mst. Nazia Jabeen and others2022 SCP 292, 2022 SCMR 2123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-05
  custody of minorshizanatremarriage of motherwelfare of the minorGuardians and Wards Actintelligent preferencebest interest of the childMohammadan Law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a custody dispute between a father and a remarried mother concerning their four children. The Appellate Court had initially awarded custody to the father on the sole ground that the mother had remarried a person outside the prohibited degrees, purportedly forfeiting her right of hizanat under Mohammadan Law. The High Court subsequently set aside this decision, restoring the trial court's order in favor of the mother. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the petition, held that the mother's second marriage is not an absolute disqualification for custody. The Court emphasized that the paramount consideration remains the welfare of the minor, which encompasses physical, mental, and emotional well-being. Referring to Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Court affirmed that the intelligent preference of the minors and the mother's capacity to provide a stable environment outweigh the general rule of forfeiture upon remarriage. The ratio establishes that a mother’s remarriage cannot be a standalone reason to deny custody if the child's best interests lie with her.

  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Farooq Haider Khan, ExPrime Minister, Azad Jammu and K_32bc4ea02022 SC AJ&K 7 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Raja Junaid Rafique vs Registrar/District Judge Muzaffabad and 2 others2022 MLD 1056 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-04-22Read full judgment →
• Raja Ibadat Sajjad Khan vs Mst. Shehnaz Kousar etc2022 LHC 7759, 2023 PLJ Lahore 315, 2024 CLC 187 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-21Read full judgment →
• Raja Hidayat Ali Khan vs Jaffar Ali2022 MLD 793 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-11-04Read full judgment →
• Raja Ghaneem Aabir Khan., Nemo vs Sajjad Hussain Bhatti, Deputy2022 YLR 1702 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-01
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionbenefit of the doubtmurder referencecapital punishmentcall data recordrecovery of weaponblind murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Mohsin Abbas, under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the qatl-i-amd of the deceased and sentencing him to death, alongside a murder reference and an appeal against the acquittal of a co-accused. The prosecution case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence, specifically an extra-judicial confession, the recovery of a weapon, and call data records, as it was an unwitnessed blind murder. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value and reliability of extra-judicial confessions, the admissibility and corroborative weight of circumstantial evidence, and compliance with mandatory procedural requirements for weapon recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the extra-judicial confession was fabricated and unreliable, the weapon recovery violated section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the call data record failed to connect the appellant to the crime. The court established that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, every single link in the chain must be conclusively proven, and any missing link entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession in a criminal trial resting on circumstantial evidence?
  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence when links in the chain of evidence are missing?
  • Does the failure of the investigating officer to associate independent witnesses from the locality vitiate the recovery of an incriminating weapon under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • How many circumstances creating a reasonable doubt are required to extend the benefit of the doubt to an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Ehtisham Kiyani vs The State2022 SCP 5, 2022 SCMR 1248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-04
  heroin possessionControl of Narcotic Substances Actinvestigating officer as complainantpresumption of regularityrebuttal of statutory presumptionpolice animosityleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the High Court judgment upholding the petitioner's conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner was sentenced to 6 years' rigorous imprisonment after being found in possession of 1500 grams of heroin. The core legal questions pertained to whether the investigation carried out entirely by the complainant/intercepting police officer rendered the prosecution doubtful due to alleged bias and previous animosity, and whether the failure to lead defense evidence or give testimony under oath impacted the defense's plea. The Supreme Court held that the prompt completion of investigative steps by the investigating officer was protected by a statutory presumption of regularity, and that allegations of animosity raised late without evidence constituted an afterthought. The Court further noted that the petitioner failed to enter the witness box under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. to rebut the adverse presumption under Section 29 of the Act. Consequently, leave to appeal was declined and the conviction was affirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an investigating officer acting as the complainant per se vitiate the prosecution in a narcotics recovery case?
  • Whether an unproven allegation of prior animosity against police officials is sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can a defense plea raised without supporting record or departmental recourse be rejected as an afterthought in narcotic cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Ali Zaman (deed.) thr. LRs and another vs Evacuee Trust Property2022 PLJ SC 436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Evacuee Trust PropertyStatutory ProcedureVoid-ab-initioExecutive AuthorityProperty DisposalFederal GovernmentSale Deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside a sale deed regarding commercial property managed by the Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB). The core legal question concerned the validity of a property sale authorized by a Federal Minister via memorandum, bypassing the statutory framework established by the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975. The Supreme Court held that the sale was void-ab-initio. The Court determined that the ETPB acts as a custodian, and any disposal of property requires a rigorous, transparent process: a Board resolution followed by Federal Government approval, and subsequent authorization of an officer under Section 12 of the Act. The Court emphasized that executive authority under Article 173 of the Constitution is subject to legislative acts; thus, actions by a Minister that contravene the specific statutory scheme governing ETPB property are not valid executive acts. The principle laid down is that property managed by the ETPB cannot be sold through discretionary ministerial orders but must strictly adhere to the prescribed statutory procedure, failing which the transaction is legally ineffective.

  Questions settled

  • What is the statutory procedure for the disposal of property under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975?
  • Can a Federal Minister unilaterally authorize the sale of ETPB-managed property without following the statutory scheme?
  • Does a sale deed executed without the requisite Board resolution and Federal Government approval constitute a valid transfer of property?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Ali Zaman (decd.) thr. LRs and another vs Evacuee Trust Property2022 SCP 224, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 391, 2022 PSC 1371, PLD 2022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  evacuee trust propertysale deed cancellationpower to acquire property and make contractsexecutive authoritystatutory interpretationtransfer of propertyvoid ab initio
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside concurrent findings of the lower fora and decreed a suit for declaration and cancellation of a sale deed filed by the Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB). The core legal question revolved around the lawful authority and procedure required for the sale and transfer of evacuee trust property, specifically whether a Federal Minister could independently order the sale of property under the control of ETPB without a formal board resolution and approval of the Federal Government under the relevant statutory framework. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the sale of evacuee trust property must strictly follow the statutory mechanisms outlined in the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975 and the applicable 1977 Scheme. The Court laid down the principle that executive acts regarding the disposal of government property must harmonize with the enabling legislation, and any transfer executed without the mandatory prior resolution of the ETPB Board and formal approval of the Federal Government is void ab initio and confers no legal title.

  Questions settled

  • Under what law or rules is the Evacuee Trust Property Board authorised to sell property under its ownership?
  • How can authorisation be granted for the sale of land under the management and control of the Evacuee Trust Property Board by either the Federal Government or by the Board itself?
  • What effect does a violation of law, rules, or procedure have on the rights of parties regarding the transfer of evacuee property?
  • Can a Federal Minister independently approve the sale of evacuee trust property without a resolution by the Evacuee Trust Property Board and approval of the Federal Government?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Abdullah Khan vs Raja Liaqat Ali Khan and 4 others2022 YLR 1271 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-11-27Read full judgment →
• Rai Nasir Iqbal vs Federation of Pakistan through Chairman NAB etc2022 IHC 68 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-11
  writ petitionstatutory remedyexhaustion of remediesservice mattercondonation of delayNational Accountability Bureaumisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged his removal from service by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through a writ petition, alleging procedural irregularities and malice. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable when a specific statutory remedy of appeal exists under the National Accountability Bureau's Employees Terms & Condition of Service (TCS-2002). The Court held that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Rule 13.01 of the TCS-2002. The Court emphasized that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent established statutory procedures. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate forum. Crucially, the Court established that filing a writ petition within the limitation period prescribed for an appeal constitutes 'sufficient ground' to condone the delay in filing the statutory appeal, thereby preserving the petitioner's right to seek redress through the proper legal channel.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal is available under the TCS-2002?
  • Does the filing of a writ petition within the limitation period for an appeal constitute sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the statutory appeal?
  • Can interlocutory orders like suspension and charge sheets be challenged separately when they merge into a final order of removal from service?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahman Ghani vs Yaqoob Khan & others2022 PHC 494 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-07Read full judgment →
• Raheem Ullah Khan vs The State2022 KLR Criminal Cases 221 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-15
  fugitive disentitlementproclaimed offenderright of audienceabscondencecontempt of courtdismissal in liminepower of attorney
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal filed by an appellant who had been declared a proclaimed offender and against whom perpetual non-bailable warrants were issued by the trial court. The core legal question was whether an absconding accused, who is a fugitive from justice, possesses the right of audience before the appellate court and whether a power of attorney executed by such an individual is legally valid. The Court held that the appeal was not maintainable and dismissed it in limine. Applying the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement, the Court ruled that a fugitive from law forfeits their right of audience and cannot seek the court's assistance while simultaneously frustrating its processes. The Court affirmed that courts will not act in aid of injustice or allow the abuse of judicial process. Consequently, an appeal filed by an absconder is not properly constituted, and counsel representing such a person without ensuring their surrender violates professional obligations. The principle established is that an absconder must surrender to the trial court before they can be granted any hearing or relief by an appellate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal filed by an absconder be heard on its merits by an appellate court?
  • Is a power of attorney executed by a fugitive from justice legally valid for the purpose of representation in court?
  • Does an absconder have a right of audience before a court while remaining a fugitive from justice?
  • Can a court dismiss an appeal in limine on the basis of the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement?
  Read full judgment →
• Raheem Gul vs Nadra and others2022 MLD 749 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-23Read full judgment →
• Rafia Bibi alias Razia vs The State etc2022 LHC 2693 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-10
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationcriminal revisionextra-judicial confessionright to libertyprocedural technicalitiesabduction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, facing allegations of abduction and murder, sought pre-arrest bail after the Sessions Court cancelled her previously granted bail. The primary legal question was whether the cancellation of bail by the Additional Sessions Judge was justified based on the additional evidence presented, and whether the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail was maintainable given that a revision petition was the appropriate remedy. The Court held that while a revision petition was the correct procedural route, it possessed the inherent power to convert the bail application into a criminal revision to prevent a failure of justice. Regarding the merits, the Court found the prosecution's additional evidence—delayed witness statements and a suspicious extra-judicial confession—insufficient to justify the cancellation of bail. The Court reaffirmed that bail cancellation requires specific grounds, such as the misuse of liberty or the emergence of credible evidence establishing guilt, which were absent here. Consequently, the Court set aside the cancellation order, emphasizing that protection against arbitrary arrest is fundamental to the right to liberty and fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court convert a bail application into a criminal revision petition?
  • What are the specific circumstances under which bail granted to an accused can be recalled or cancelled?
  • Does the absence of incriminating material against an accused, coupled with police insistence on arrest, indicate mala fide?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession made jointly before multiple relatives considered to have legal sanctity?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafhan Maize Products Company Ltd vs Director General, Environmental2022 CLD 233 · Sindh Environmental Protection Tribunal · 2021-07-07Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali vs The State2022 SCMR 1107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-14
  murdersupplementary statementSection 302 PPCSection 161 CrPCsuppression of injuriesbenefit of doubtacquittalappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal assailed the judgment of the High Court, which had altered the appellant's death sentence under Section 302(b) PPC to life imprisonment. The core legal questions pertained to the evidentiary weight of supplementary statements changing the original case, the effect of suppressing injuries on a co-accused, and whether conviction could stand on evidence disbelieved regarding identically placed acquitted co-accused. The Supreme Court held that a supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be read in continuation of an FIR, placing a heavy burden on the prosecution to explain the initial failure to nominate an accused. The Court observed that suppressing the co-accused's injuries, abandoning named witnesses while relying on un-named ones, and making major improvements severely compromised the prosecution's case. Finding multiple doubts deducible from the prosecution's own evidence, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. The judgment establishes that conviction cannot rest on moral speculation where the original narrative is significantly altered and unexplained doubts exist.

  Questions settled

  • Can a supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. be treated as a continuation of the First Information Report?
  • What is the prosecution's burden when introducing new accused persons through supplementary statements after failing to nominate them in the initial crime report?
  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by a co-accused during the occurrence create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events?
  Read full judgment →
• Rabnawaz vs Mst. Sabu Bibi & others2022 PHC 410 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
• Rabeah Hussain and 3 others vs Nusrat Aftab and 6 others2022 LHC 854, 2024 CLD 100 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-15Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz s/o Shehbaz Khan r/o Janak Shakardara, Kohat vs The State,2022 PHC 364 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Qutab Ali Shah vs The State and another2022 YLR 366 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-05
  post-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustembezzlementnon-prohibitory clausefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 71 of 2019 registered under sections 408 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Tarnol, Islamabad, relating to an alleged criminal breach of trust and embezzlement. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail when the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and investigation was complete. The Islamabad High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, holding that offences falling outside the prohibitory clause should generally be considered favorably for bail unless exceptional circumstances exist, and that unjustified incarceration cannot be adequately compensated upon ultimate acquittal. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and its refusal is an exception.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when investigation is complete and no exceptional circumstances for refusal exist?
  • Does a case of further inquiry warrant the grant of bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Qureshi Textile Mills Limited Through Assistant Manager vs District Council, Chak Shahana Road, Khanewal through Chairman and Another2022 MLD 1938 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-31Read full judgment →
• Qurban Hussain vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 1022 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-15
  double jeopardyautrefois acquitautrefois convictanti-terrorismcriminal appealconstitutional protectionsame set of facts
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences under the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The appellant had previously been tried, convicted, and subsequently acquitted by the High Court in a separate case (FIR No. 80/2012) arising from the same set of facts and involving the same recovery of incriminating articles. The core legal question was whether the appellant's second trial for the same offences violated the doctrine of double jeopardy. The Court held that the second trial was indeed hit by the doctrine of double jeopardy, as the appellant had already been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for the same facts. The Court emphasized that the constitutional and statutory protections against double jeopardy, enshrined in Article 13 of the Constitution, Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, forbid a second trial for the same offence. Consequently, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of double jeopardy apply when an accused is tried for the same offence in a subsequent case arising from the same set of facts?
  • What are the prerequisites for the application of the doctrine of double jeopardy as established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Can an accused be prosecuted again for an offence for which they have already been acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Does Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, prohibit multiple punishments for the same act or omission?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali Bullar vs The State2022 YLR 1907 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-08
  murderpolice encounterfirearm injuryeyewitness testimonycriminal appealmedical evidenceminor contradictionsappellant conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Naushahro Feroze, whereby the appellant, a police official, was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The prosecution case is that the victim and his relatives were travelling in a car when stopped by a police party on the National Highway. After a brief verbal exchange due to the car stopping a few paces ahead of the police mobile, the appellant fired at the car, causing fatal firearm injuries to the deceased. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular and medical evidence, the impact of minor discrepancies, the effect of omissions under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the assessment of prompt FIR registration. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through trustworthy eyewitness and medical evidence. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence, and ruled that minor contradictions do not dilute the credibility of consistent eyewitness accounts corroborated by medical evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to discard an otherwise consistent and trustworthy eyewitness account?
  • Does the mere relationship of eyewitnesses to the deceased render their testimony unreliable or partisan in the absence of direct enmity?
  • Whether the failure to put certain pieces of circumstantial evidence, such as weapon recovery empties and FSL reports, to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the conviction when independent strong evidence exists?
  • Does prompt registration of the First Information Report exclude the possibility of consultation or deliberation in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Qudrat Ullah vs The State and others2022 PLD Lahore 512 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-09
  post-arrest bailmedical groundsunsound mindmental illnessschizophreniafitness to stand trialnarcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by Qudrat Ullah seeking post-arrest bail on medical grounds in a case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving a large recovery of contraband. The core legal question addressed was whether the High Court, in its bail jurisdiction, can release an accused suffering from a mental illness such as paranoid schizophrenia under sections 465 and 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, without the matter first being inquired into and determined by the trial court. The Lahore High Court held that the determination of an accused's unsoundness of mind and incapacity to make a defense must be tried and recorded by the trial court itself pursuant to the special procedure prescribed in Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that the High Court cannot bypass this procedure to grant bail under Section 466 when acting as a post-arrest bail forum rather than the trial court. The key principles laid down are that an accused's mental illness and fitness to stand trial must be assessed by a Medical Board and formally tried by the trial court under Section 465 before powers relating to release or detention under Section 466 can be invoked, and that bail petitions based on mental incapacity should initially be addressed to the trial court following the statutory procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can grant post-arrest bail under Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, on the ground of an accused's mental unsoundness without the matter being first tried and determined by the trial court?
  • Is a medical report from a jail medical officer alone sufficient for a court to invoke Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to release an accused of unsound mind?
  • What is the proper procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for dealing with an accused person who appears to be of unsound mind and incapable of making a defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Quality Steel Re-Rolling Mill, through Legally Authorized Officer vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad and 7 others2022 PTD 39 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-16Read full judgment →
• Qazi Siddique Akbar through Legal Heirs vs Hassan Akhtar and others2022 CLC 73 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-24Read full judgment →
• Qayyum Khan vs The State and others2022 SCMR 273, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-12
  post-arrest bailcriminal petitionfalsely implicatedinvestigation reportFIR nomination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of post-arrest bail by the High Court in a criminal case where the petitioner and a co-accused were specifically nominated in the FIR for firing at and injuring the victim. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground that the investigating officer found him empty-handed at the scene of the occurrence. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR for causing injury and the investigating officer's opinion regarding him being empty-handed lacked credible evidentiary support—leading to disciplinary action and a recommendation for reinvestigation—the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The Court affirmed the High Court's order refusing bail, establishing that a flawed police opinion unsupported by evidence does not override specific nomination and role attribution in the FIR for the purpose of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused specifically nominated in the FIR for causing injury entitled to bail merely because the investigating officer opined he was empty-handed?
  • Can a flawed or unsupported opinion of an investigating officer override specific allegations of firing and injury in a criminal case for the purpose of granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Qausain Faisal vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M_o Interior, etc2022 SCP 190, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 675, 2022 PLJ SC 339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-07-18
  Registrar's powersadministrative vs judicial functionsmaintainability of petitionSupreme Court Rules 1980constitutional petitionArticle 184(3)practice and procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, who refused to register a constitutional petition filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, citing various objections regarding maintainability, lack of public importance, and procedural defects. The core legal question was whether the Registrar possesses the authority to adjudicate upon the maintainability and merits of a constitutional petition or if such powers are exclusively reserved for the Court. The Supreme Court held that the Registrar’s powers are primarily administrative and ministerial, limited to ensuring compliance with the practice and procedure of the Court. The Court ruled that the Registrar cannot assume an adjudicatory role to determine the maintainability or merits of a petition, as these are justiciable issues reserved for the Court. Consequently, the Court overruled the Registrar’s objections concerning the petition's maintainability while upholding objections related to procedural form and presentation. The principle established is that the Registrar’s authority is strictly confined to administrative compliance, and any determination regarding the maintainability of a constitutional petition must be made by the Court on the judicial side.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Registrar of the Supreme Court have the authority to decide the maintainability of a constitutional petition filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
  • Are the powers of the Registrar under the Supreme Court Rules 1980 administrative or adjudicatory in nature?
  • Can the Registrar decline to register a petition on grounds related to the merits or public importance of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim Siddique Zia vs M. Sabir Bhatti etc2022 IHC 166 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-16
  acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencecar theftcriminal breach of trustcontradictory testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate Section-30 Islamabad-West, whereby respondent No.1 was acquitted of charges relating to car theft, cheating, forgery, and administering poison. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of the acquitted respondent beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of contradictions in testimony and the absence of primary evidence linking him to the crime. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the respondent's involvement, noting that the star witness did not place the respondent at the scene of the drugging, the car was recovered from a co-accused, and glaring contradictions existed regarding an alleged agreement to return the vehicle. The court reaffirmed the principle that an accused who earns an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, which cannot be dislodged unless the trial court's view is perverse or impossible.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal judgment passed after a full-length trial can be set aside on the mere possibility of a contrary view?
  • Does the failure of the star witness to implicate the accused at the material time of the offense render the charge groundless?
  • What is the evidentiary weight of a double presumption of innocence enjoyed by an accused who has earned an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim Shah Marble Factory Umary, District Bajur through Proprietor vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary, Finance and Revenue Division, Islamabad and 6 others2022 PTD 981 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-03Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali vs The State2022 PLD Lahore 694 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-15
  confessional convictionprobation of offenderseffect of probation on convictionstigma of convictioncriminal appealnarcotic substancesdisqualification of convicted persons
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment wherein the appellant, convicted under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 on the basis of his voluntary confession and sentenced to one year and nine months imprisonment with a fine, was simultaneously placed on probation under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960. The core legal question was the maintainability of the criminal appeal against a conviction founded on confession where the appellant sought relief regarding the future stigma of conviction and its effect on his education and prospects. The Lahore High Court held that under section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appeal following a conviction on a confession is barred except as to the extent or legality of the sentence, though a revision may lie, but noted that the High Court may treat the matter appropriately. Crucially, the Court laid down that under section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960, a conviction coupled with an order of probation is deemed not to be a conviction for any purpose other than proceedings under the Ordinance itself, and stands disregarded for any law imposing disqualifications or disabilities, thereby destigmatizing the offender to protect future prospects.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal appeal is maintainable against a conviction recorded on the basis of a voluntary confessional statement?
  • What is the legal effect of a conviction under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 regarding future disqualifications and disabilities?
  • Can a conviction resulting in an order of probation be deemed a conviction for the purpose of imposing employment penalties or civil disqualifications?
  • How does section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 restrict challenges to a sentence following a plea of guilty?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C.1218 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-15
  probationnarcotics controlconfessional statementcriminal appealdisqualificationdestigmatizationrehabilitative justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, convicted under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 for possession of 680 grams of charas, challenged his conviction and sentence. Although the trial court convicted him based on his voluntary confession, it placed him on probation under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960. The appellant sought to challenge the conviction, fearing it would jeopardize his future prospects as a student. The core legal question was whether a conviction under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 constitutes a disqualification or stigma for future purposes. The Court held that while the appeal against a conviction based on a confession is generally restricted by Section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the conviction itself is valid. Crucially, the Court clarified that under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960, such a conviction is disregarded for any law imposing disqualifications or disabilities, except for proceedings under the Ordinance itself. The principle established is that probation is intended to destigmatize offenders, allowing them to reintegrate into society without the burden of a criminal record.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conviction under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 constitute a disqualification for future employment or educational prospects?
  • Can an appeal be filed against a conviction recorded solely on the basis of a voluntary confession?
  • Does the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 allow a court to disregard a conviction for the purposes of imposing legal disabilities?
  • Can a civil servant be dismissed from service solely based on a conviction under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali Shah & another vs Govt: of KPK & others2022 PHC 272 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-21Read full judgment →
• Qamar-Ul-Zaman and another vs The State and another2022 MLD 896 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-04
  criminal revisionhurtta'zirdamanprevious convicthabitual offenderdangerous criminalsentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition assails the appellate court's judgment upholding the petitioners' convictions under Section 337-F(v) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, while enhancing their sentences of imprisonment. The core legal question concerns whether a sentence of imprisonment as ta'zir can be awarded for offences of hurt under Chapter XVI of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, in the absence of the conditions specified in Section 337-N(2). The Lahore High Court held that the non-obstante clause in Section 337-N(2) has an overriding effect, meaning that the normal punishment for hurt is arsh or daman, and imprisonment as ta'zir can only be awarded if the offender is a previous convict, habitual, hardened, desperate, dangerous, or if the offence is committed in the name or pretext of honour. The court concluded that since the prosecution failed to establish any such circumstances against the petitioners, the sentence of imprisonment by way of ta'zir was legally unsustainable and thus set aside, while maintaining the convictions and the payment of daman.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence of imprisonment as ta'zir be awarded for offences of hurt under Chapter XVI of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, without satisfying the conditions laid down in Section 337-N(2)?
  • What is the scope and overriding effect of Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, regarding the normal punishment for causing hurt?
  • How are the terms 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' to be interpreted under Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamar Iqbal vs The State2022 IHC 44 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-05
  post-arrest bailnon-prohibitory clausefurther inquirycriminal fraudbail principlesimpersonation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner in FIR No. 494/21, involving charges under Sections 411, 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, not named in the original FIR, was implicated following a disclosure statement made while in custody for a separate matter. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the alleged offences and the absence of specific naming in the FIR. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the alleged offences fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making bail the rule rather than the exception. Furthermore, the court observed that the petitioner was not a previous convict, and there was no evidence suggesting a likelihood of abscondence, tampering with evidence, or repeating the offence. The court clarified that the mere registration of other FIRs does not constitute a legal bar to the grant of bail. Consequently, the petition was allowed, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere registration of other FIRs against an accused constitute a legal bar to the grant of bail?
  • Is bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused who was not named in the FIR be granted bail when their involvement is based on a disclosure statement made while in custody for another case?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaiser-Ur-Rehman vs Civil Judge and another2022 CLC 391 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-12Read full judgment →
• Qaiser vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 851 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-24
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtocular evidenceante-timed FIRadverse inferencedeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Qaiser, for the murder of Muhammad Waseem, as handed down by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the defense's contention that the deceased died from a stray bullet during cross-firing between rival groups. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to substantiate its case. The court found the FIR to be ante-timed, the ocular evidence unreliable due to significant contradictions regarding the transportation of the deceased to the hospital, and the motive unproven. Furthermore, the court drew an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 for the failure to produce independent witnesses. Emphasizing that corroborative evidence like medical reports and weapon recovery cannot substitute for reliable direct evidence, the court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove its case, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellant and setting aside the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce independent witnesses available at the scene of a crime warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can medical evidence and recovery of weapons alone sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable ocular testimony?
  • Is an FIR considered ante-timed when the complainant's testimony regarding the timing of the report contradicts the official record?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence provide grounds for the acquittal of the remaining appellant?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Shah and 6 others vs The Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Secretary Health, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and 3 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 478 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-17
  Class-IV appointmentpolitical pressurewithdrawal of appointmentEmployment ExchangeDepartmental Selection CommitteeCivil Servants (Appointments, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989back benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the withdrawal of appointment orders for Class-IV government employees, specifically Ward Attendants, a Chowkidar, and Drivers, by the Medical Superintendent of DHQ Hospital, Charsadda. The core legal questions were whether appointment orders could be withdrawn on the grounds of "political pressure" and whether candidates registered earlier with the Employment Exchange possess a superior legal right to appointment over others. The Court held that the withdrawal of appointment orders solely due to "political pressure" is legally unsustainable and arbitrary, thus setting aside the impugned order. Regarding the connected petition, the Court clarified that while the Civil Servants (Appointments, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, mandate that appointments to Basic Pay Scale 3 to 5 must be made via the Departmental Selection Committee and the District Employment Exchange, these rules do not establish a priority right based on the seniority of registration with the Employment Exchange. Consequently, the Court affirmed the petitioners' appointments and dismissed the connected petition as infructuous, establishing that administrative actions must rest on valid legal grounds rather than extraneous political considerations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department withdraw an appointment order solely on the ground of political pressure?
  • Does registration with an Employment Exchange prior in time confer a superior right to appointment for Class-IV posts under the Civil Servants (Appointments, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989?
  • Is the recommendation of a Departmental Selection Committee a mandatory requirement for appointments in Basic Pay Scale 3 to 5?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Jabbar vs Syed Mati Ullah Shah and another2022 YLR 1696 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-23
  illegal dispossessioncriminal revisioncivil disputeland grabberqabza groupabuse of processpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 as non-maintainable. The core legal question revolved around whether a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 could be maintained where a bona fide civil dispute was already pending between the parties and the accused lacked the credentials of a professional land grabber or Qabza group. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 is not meant to settle civil disputes or act as a substitute for civil litigation, and that its provisions primarily target land grabbers and criminal mafias rather than individuals involved in bona fide property disputes. The key principles laid down include that criminal processes under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 cannot be abused to exert pressure in civil matters, and complaints must be supported by cogent evidence establishing unlawful dispossession by persons with land-grabbing antecedents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 is maintainable when a bona fide civil dispute is already pending between the parties?
  • Can the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 be invoked against persons who do not possess the credentials or antecedents of a land grabber or Qabza group?
  • Is a criminal revision petition competent against an order dismissing a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaiser and another vs The State2022 SCMR 1641, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 974 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-02
  Narcotics offenseControl of Narcotic Substances ActSafe custody of samplesSafe transmission of samplesChain of custodyGovernment analyst reportConviction set asideAcquittalStare decisisStandard of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned petitions for leave to appeal and a suo motu review petition against convictions under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for drug-related offenses. The core legal questions revolved around the prosecution's burden to establish the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotic samples to the laboratory, and the binding nature of precedents set by benches of co-equal strength of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and the suo motu review petition, setting aside the convictions. The Court held that the prosecution's failure to establish the safe custody and safe transmission of representative samples from the point of recovery to the Government analyst's office casts doubt on the reliability and conclusiveness of the analyst's report, thereby vitiating the conviction. It was reiterated that the chain of custody is pivotal, and any break renders the chemical examiner's report unreliable. The Court also reaffirmed the principle that decisions of a bench of certain judges are binding on subsequent benches of the same strength, and any deviation requires a reference to a larger bench. Given the severity of punishment under the Act, a stricter standard of proof is required, extending the benefit of doubt to the accused for any defect in the prosecution's case.

  Read full judgment →
• Qaisar Abbas and another vs Federation Of Pakistan, through Secretary2022 CLC 146 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-24Read full judgment →
• Punjab Public Service Commission, through Chairman and 3 others vs Ahsan-Ul-Haq2022 PLJ Lahore 232 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Punjab Healthcare Commission vs District & Sessions Judge Faisalabad2022 PLJ Lahore 441 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab through Deputy Commissioner/District Collector,Rawalpindi and another vs Muhammad Akram and others Muhammad Khalil Ahmad Abdullah and others2022 SCP 426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-01
  land acquisitionterritorial jurisdictionboundary disputeinter-governmental disputeconsent orderdeletion of partiescivil petition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil petitions for leave to appeal arose from a consolidated order of the Lahore High Court disposing of writ petitions concerning land acquisition and territorial boundary disputes in Mauza Ojri Kalan between the Province of Punjab and the Islamabad Capital Territory. The core legal question was whether the High Court's directions for initiating fresh proceedings regarding the acquisition or de-acquisition of land were sustainable, particularly when the Provincial Government's law officers had consented to the deletion of key revenue authorities from the array of respondents, and how inter-governmental territorial disputes must be resolved. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's directions suffered from no illegality, perversity, or impropriety, noting that the petitioner Province of Punjab lacked grounds to challenge an order to which it had consented below, and reiterated that disputes regarding territorial boundaries between the Federal and Provincial Governments fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court pursuant to the Constitution. The petitions were accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party that consented to the striking off of necessary respondents from the array of parties before the High Court can maintain a petition against the resulting order?
  • How is a territorial dispute between the Federal Government and a Provincial Government required to be settled under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does an order directing the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings regarding the acquisition or de-acquisition of land suffer from legal infirmity when based on prior settled boundary reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Province Of Sindh, through Secretary Revenue Department and 3 others vs Thakur Das and others2022 MLD 174 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-25Read full judgment →
• Province Of Sindh, through Secretary Irrigation and Power Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 2 others vs Land Acquisition Officer_Deputy District Officer (R&R), Rohri and others2022 CLC 409 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-14Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh through Secretary to Government of Sindh, Works &2022 SHC 74, 2024 CLC 568 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-09Read full judgment →
• Province Of Sindh and others vs Shahzad Hussain Talpur2022 SCMR 439, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 659, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-30
  civil serviceillegal appointmentconflict of interestpublic service commissioncompetent authorityservice tribunalvoid order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed by the Province of Sindh challenging a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal which had set aside the dismissal of the respondent from the post of Special Auditor. The respondent had been appointed by the Secretary of the Cooperation Department, who was residing at the same address as the respondent. To facilitate the appointment, the Secretary had downgraded the post from BS-17 to BS-16 to assume appointing authority, concealed his identity and designation under the vague term 'competent authority', and omitted the respondent's full surname to hide their connection. No competitive testing or selection by the Sindh Public Service Commission was conducted as required by law. The Supreme Court held that the appointment was patently illegal and void ab initio. The Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, emphasizing that the use of the anonymous term 'competent authority' without disclosing the actual name and designation of the issuing official is against public policy, facilitates illegalities, and undermines accountability.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appointment to a civil post be sustained if it bypasses the mandatory competitive selection process of the Public Service Commission?
  • Does a conflict of interest arise when a departmental head appoints an individual residing at the same address without disclosing their connection?
  • Is the practice of issuing official notifications under the anonymous term 'competent authority' without disclosing the official's name and designation legally valid?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh and others vs Mir Shahzad Hussain Talpur2022 PSC 176, 2022 SCMR 439, 2022 PCTLR 584 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-30
  civil service appointmentpublic service commissionservice tribunalcompetent authorityillegal appointmentaccountabilitylimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal which reinstated the respondent as a Special Auditor after his services were terminated. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondent’s appointment, made without the mandatory selection process by the Sindh Public Service Commission, was valid, and whether the Tribunal erred in condoning a time-barred departmental appeal by declaring the termination order void. The Supreme Court held that the appointment was patently illegal as it bypassed the requisite selection process by the Commission, regardless of whether the post was Grade 16 or 17. Furthermore, the Tribunal erred in condoning the delay in filing the departmental appeal. The Court emphasized that public functionaries must act transparently; the use of the vague term competent authority in official notifications without disclosing the specific name and designation of the official is against public policy and facilitates illegality. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the Tribunal's judgment was set aside, establishing that all official communications must clearly identify the issuing authority to ensure accountability.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant be validly appointed to a post requiring Public Service Commission selection without such a process?
  • Does the use of the term 'competent authority' in official notifications without disclosing the official's name and designation satisfy legal requirements for accountability?
  • Can a Service Tribunal condone a time-barred departmental appeal by merely categorizing a termination order as a void order?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh & Others vs Rahim Bux Khan & Others2022 SHC 64, 2022 CLC 2063 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-14Read full judgment →
• Province Of Punjab through Secretary, Irrigation Department, Jhang vs Sajjad Naseem and 3 others2022 PLC 44 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-26
  work-charge employeeregularization of servicelabour court jurisdictionadministration of the statecommercial establishmentconstitutional petitiontermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal which directed the regularization of a work-charge employee of the Irrigation Department. The core legal question was whether a government department employee could invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Courts to seek regularization under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 or the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The High Court set aside the lower orders, holding that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction. The Court determined that government departments do not constitute 'commercial establishments' under the Standing Orders, and the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 explicitly excludes persons employed in the 'administration of the State.' The Court further held that regularization of service is an executive function dependent on the existence of sanctioned posts and budgetary considerations. Consequently, work-charge employees whose services are terminated upon the expiry of their contract period cannot claim regularization through labour forums, as such forums lack jurisdiction over government departments governed by statutory service rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 apply to employees of a government department?
  • Can a work-charge employee of a government department seek regularization through a Labour Court under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • Does the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 apply to persons employed in the administration of the State?
  • Is the regularization of a government employee an executive function requiring a sanctioned post?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Khan., Muhammad Akbar & 13 others vs Province of Sindh and others2022 SHC 514 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-16Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Revenue2022 LHC 8424 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary, Government of Punjab, Labour &2022 KLR Revenue Cases 39 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Province Of Punjab through Secretary to Government of Punjab Public2022 PLJ SC 31 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  defence counsel feepauper accusedunrepresented accusedindigent personPunjab Legal Aid Act 2018Lahore High Court Rules and Ordersconstitutional jurisdictionnon-payment of legal fees
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil petitions for leave to appeal were filed by the Province of Punjab against the High Court's judgment directing the payment of unpaid professional fees to advocate respondents who were appointed as defence counsel by the High Court in criminal matters. The core legal question concerned how the professional fees of court-appointed defence counsel in pauper and unrepresented accused cases ought to be determined and disbursed following the enactment of the Punjab Legal Aid Act 2018 alongside the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court disposed of the petitions by holding that defence counsel appointed by the High Court are governed by the High Court Rules and Orders, whereas appointments by the government are covered by the 2018 Act. To avoid discrimination and maintain parity, the Court directed the Prosecution Department to disburse Rs. 25,000 per case for High Court appearances and Rs. 20,000 per case for Sessions Court appearances within two months based on judgment verification.

  Questions settled

  • How are professional fees for defence counsel appointed by the High Court in pauper or unrepresented accused cases regulated?
  • What is the effect of the Punjab Legal Aid Act 2018 on High Court Rules and Orders framed under Article 202 of the Constitution?
  • How should professional fee parity be maintained for defence counsel appointed in pauper accused cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through D.O.(R) Sahiwal vs District Judge and others2022 CLC 908, 2022 [M] CLR 1066 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-23Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Advocate General Punjab vs Saqib Jang &2022 LHC 3202 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Additional District Collector, Jhang and another vs Additional District Judge, Jhang and 2 others2022 MLD 1138, 2022 PLJ Lahore 953 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-17Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and others vs Muhammad Arif And Company2022 PLD Lahore 596 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-20
  civil revisionlimitationoffice objectionscondonation of delayre-filingstatutory limitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a challenge to an appellate court judgment that made an arbitral award a rule of the court. The core legal question concerns whether a civil revision, initially filed within the limitation period but returned by the office due to defects, remains within time when re-filed after the expiry of the prescribed period and the office-imposed deadline for removing objections. The Court held that the revision was time-barred. The ratio established is that when a petition is returned by the office with a specific timeframe to remove objections, the petitioner must comply with that deadline. Failure to re-file within the stipulated time, especially when the statutory limitation period for filing the revision has subsequently expired, renders the petition time-barred. The Court further affirmed the principle that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a plausible explanation for each day of delay, demonstrating that the delay was beyond their control. Mere assertions of hardship or the involvement of valuable rights are insufficient to justify condonation when the statutory period of limitation has elapsed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil revision petition become time-barred if it is returned by the office for defects and not re-filed within the office-imposed deadline, provided the statutory limitation period has also expired?
  • Is a party required to explain each day of delay when seeking condonation for a time-barred civil revision petition?
  • Can a court entertain a time-barred civil revision petition in the absence of an application for condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Project Director New Thakot Bridge & Others vs Sher Zada & Others2022 PHC 552 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-10Read full judgment →
• Professor Nisar Ahmed Khan Rao vs Institute Of Business Administration2022 PLJ Karachi 14, 2022 CLC 1680 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-02Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Qazi Tahir Uddin vs The Secretary, Pakistan Medical Commission, Islamabad and 3 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 805 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-17
  statutory tenuresecurity of tenurewrongful terminationwrit jurisdictionstatutory interpretationouster of jurisdictiondue processPakistan Medical Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Member (Examinations) of the National Medical Authority (NMA), challenged the termination of his appointment by the Pakistan Medical Commission (PMC). The core legal question was whether a statutory appointee, appointed for a fixed four-year term under the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020, could be removed via a contractual termination clause, or if such removal required adherence to the statutory inquiry process prescribed in Section 15(7) of the Act. The Court held that the termination was unlawful, ruling that statutory tenure and removal procedures cannot be circumvented by contractual terms. The Court emphasized that the inclusion of a termination clause in the appointment letter was an attempt to bypass the statutory mandate, rendering such clauses surplusage. The Court further clarified that the Medical Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over this matter as the PMC Act had not been notified under the Medical Tribunal Act, 2020. Consequently, the Court set aside the termination, affirming that security of tenure is essential for the independent discharge of statutory duties, and ordered the petitioner's reinstatement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory appointee with a fixed tenure be removed through a contractual termination clause?
  • Does the Medical Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions made under the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020, without a specific notification from the Federal Government?
  • Can parties contract out of the beneficial provisions of a statute regarding tenure and removal?
  • Is the ouster of the jurisdiction of superior courts to be inferred by implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Qazi Tahir Uddin vs The Secretary, Pakistan Medical Commission2022 [M] CLR 337 · Islamabad High Court
  statutory tenurepremature terminationfixed-term appointmentmaster and servantdue processcontractual employmentstatutory protection
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, appointed as Member (Examinations) of the National Medical Authority under Section 15 of the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020 for a fixed statutory term of four years, challenged the termination of his appointment via a contractual notice period clause. The core legal question was whether a statutory officer holding a fixed-term tenure under the Act could be prematurely removed through a contractual termination clause or in any manner other than the mandatory inquiry procedure prescribed by Section 15(7) of the Act. The Islamabad High Court held that the statutory provisions of the Act must prevail over inconsistent contractual terms, rendering any termination clause enabling removal without an inquiry and statutory grounds null and void. The court ruled that a fixed-term statutory appointment cannot be curtailed except through the due process and specific grounds stipulated in the governing statute, thereby setting aside the termination letter and allowing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a fixed-term statutory appointment can be prematurely terminated through a contractual notice clause inconsistent with the governing statute?
  • Does the Medical Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions of authorities formed under the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020 without a notification under Section 6(2) of the Medical Tribunal Act, 2020?
  • Can a statutory body remove a member of the National Medical Authority without conducting an inquiry on the grounds specified in Section 15(7) of the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020?
  • Do statutory provisions regarding tenure override conflicting terms and conditions contained in an employment contract or offer letter?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Jan Muhammad & another vs Province of Sindh & others2022 SHC 56 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-08
  quo warrantoprobationeracting chargeunfettered discretionpublic officemaintainabilityseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought a writ of quo warranto challenging an office order issued by the Vice Chancellor of Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical University, Larkana, assigning the additional charge of Principal of an affiliated medical college to Respondent No. 6. The petitioners contended that Respondent No. 6 was a junior professor serving on probation without regular confirmation, who lacked administrative experience, while senior permanent professors were bypassed arbitrarily without lawful criteria or statutory rules. The respondents challenged maintainability, citing the absence of statutory rules and asserting the Vice Chancellor's unfettered administrative discretion under the governing statute. The High Court held that a petition seeking a writ of quo warranto under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution is maintainable against a public office holder even in the absence of statutory rules. The Court ruled that administrative discretion is never unfettered and must be exercised transparently and reasonably. An employee on probation cannot be appointed or assigned acting charge of a key public office like Principal over senior permanent professors, nor can acting charge stop-gap arrangements persist indefinitely. The impugned appointment order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ of quo warranto under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution is maintainable against an appointment to a public office in a university that lacks statutory rules?
  • Can a retired employee maintain a constitutional petition seeking a writ of quo warranto as a non-interested party?
  • Whether a university Vice Chancellor possesses unfettered discretion to appoint a junior probationer to hold acting charge of a public office over senior permanent professors?
  • Can a person whose eligibility for a public office is challenged on the cut-off date cure that deficiency merely by completing probation during the pendency of court proceedings?
  Read full judgment →