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.

• Muhammad Saeed and others vs Province of Punjab and others2022 YLR 2212 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed and others vs Haidar Ali and others2022 PHC 638 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed & 2 others vs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan & 3 others2022 LHC 6899 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Dawood Jan Muhammad and others2022 SHC 18 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir and another vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 606 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-12
  police encountermurder of police constableAnti-Terrorism Actred-handed arrestballistic reportidentification paradepolice witness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  Appeals were preferred before the High Court of Sindh challenging the conviction and sentences rendered by the Anti-Terrorism Court, which had convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34, 324, and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, as well as Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The prosecution alleged that the appellants engaged in an armed encounter with a police patrol, fatally shooting a police constable, and were subsequently apprehended on the spot with unlicensed pistols. The legal issue centered on whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants committed the murder. The High Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions, holding that the testimonies of the police witnesses and an independent mashir were trustworthy, confident, and corroborated by medical evidence and positive ballistic FSL reports. The Court reaffirmed that the testimony of police officials is as reliable as that of any other witness absent proved ill will, and that red-handed arrest eliminates the requirement for an identification parade.

  Questions settled

  • Is an identification parade required when accused persons are apprehended red-handed at the place of occurrence?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on the testimony of police witnesses where no ill will or enmity is established against them?
  • Whether minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to vitiate a criminal conviction?
  • Can a court base a conviction in a murder case upon the direct evidence of a single reliable and confidence-inspiring eye-witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan vs Syed Tahir Abbas Shah and others2022 PHC 96, 2022 CLC 1193 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan Dalia and 3 others vs Ombudsman (The Protection2022 PLD Sindh 213 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz, etc vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 548 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 721 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-20
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequemala fidecriminal liabilityinvestigationfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Riaz, who is accused under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly dishonouring a cheque issued to the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the delay in lodging the FIR and the investigating officer's findings regarding the cheque's issuance as a guarantee to a third party rather than the complainant. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the ad-interim bail previously granted. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle that the investigation was complete, the petitioner was no longer required for further investigation, and the circumstances—including the unexplained delay in the FIR and the investigating officer's findings—raised sufficient doubt regarding the petitioner's involvement. The Court further affirmed that courts may examine the merits of a case during pre-arrest bail proceedings and that mala fide intent can be inferred from facts and circumstances, particularly when incriminating material is absent.

  Questions settled

  • Can the merits of a case be examined by a court during pre-arrest bail proceedings?
  • Is it necessary for an accused to provide independent, positive proof of mala fide to be granted pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the absence of incriminating material against an accused justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can mala fide intent on the part of the complainant or police be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Govt. of Pakistan etc2022 LHC 2192 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Government of Pakistan and others2022 CLC 1950 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Ahmad vs Mst. Shaheen Akhtar etc2022 LHC 7788 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rehan vs The State2022 YLR 2163 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-30
  murderanti-terrorismsole eye-witnessidentification paradefirearm recoveryforensic science laboratory reportcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed an appeal against his conviction under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Section 302 and Section 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, which resulted in life imprisonment and other concurrent sentences, while the State filed a revision for enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal questions involved the credibility of a sole eye-witness testimony during a night-time incident, the reliability of identification parades, corroborative medical and forensic evidence, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case through a natural, reliable, and confidence-inspiring sole eye-witness, supported by prompt FIR lodgment, availability of street lights, successful identification parade, recovery of the murder weapon upon the appellant's pointation, and a positive forensic science laboratory report. The court laid down that the quality of evidence matters more than quantity, that darkness does not grant immunity if identity is otherwise established, and that the testimony of a sole eye-witness is sufficient for conviction if corroborated by solid supportive material.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a sole eye-witness is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction in a night-time incident?
  • Does the presence of street lights at the crime scene overcome the evidentiary challenges of a night-time identification?
  • Whether the recovery of a weapon upon the pointation of an accused coupled with a positive FSL report serves as sufficient corroborative evidence?
  • Can minor discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses be considered fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Razzaq vs The State & another2022 LHC 6257 · Lahore High Court · 2022-08-18
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayfair trialSection 173 CrPCjudicial remandcriminal justice systemfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a third post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, accused of offences under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail due to the excessive delay in the submission of the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the subsequent delay in the trial. The Court held that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over two years without a charge sheet, constituting a violation of his fundamental rights to a fair trial and due process. The Court granted bail, emphasizing that the delay was not attributable to the petitioner. The judgment lays down the principle that state functionaries, including investigating agencies, prosecutors, and magistrates, have a mandatory duty to ensure the timely submission of police reports and that failure to do so, resulting in prolonged detention without trial, entitles an accused to bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the delay in the submission of a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, entitle an accused to bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can a Magistrate extend judicial remand under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, without assigning reasonable cause or ensuring the submission of a police report?
  • Is delay in the conclusion of a trial attributable to the accused relevant for bail if it occurs after the expiry of the statutory period provided in the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raziq vs The State and 2 others2022 PCRLJ 1145 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-20
  bail applicationtransfer of caseSessions Judge jurisdictionAdditional Sessions JudgeCode of Criminal Procedurejudicial power
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order by the Acting District and Sessions Judge transferring pending bail applications from one Additional Sessions Judge to another. The core legal question was whether a Sessions Judge possesses the authority under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to transfer a bail application once it has been entrusted to an Additional Sessions Judge. The Court held that the Sessions Judge lacks the jurisdiction to transfer a bail application after it has been entrusted. Consequently, the impugned transfer order was set aside as being without lawful authority. The Court established that while a Sessions Judge may initially entrust cases or urgent applications to Additional Sessions Judges under Sections 17(4) and 193(2), the power to transfer under Section 528(1A) does not extend to bail applications once entrusted. The authority to transfer such matters rests with the High Court under Section 526 or Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Sessions Judge have the power to transfer a bail application from one Additional Sessions Judge to another?
  • Can a Sessions Judge recall or withdraw a bail application once it has been entrusted to an Additional Sessions Judge?
  • Under what provision can a High Court transfer a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Razi alias Muhammad Khalil vs The State2022 MLD 887 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-12-01
  criminal appealjuvenile offenderQatl-e-Amdocular accountinterested witnessesmedical evidenceweapon recoverysentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Juvenile Court/Sessions Judge, Ghizer, whereby the appellant, a juvenile, was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-e-Amd of his brother and sentenced to life imprisonment, along with a conviction under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965. The core legal questions revolved around the credibility of the ocular testimony of related and interested witnesses, the sufficiency of corroborative circumstantial and medical evidence, and the appraisal of evidence in a criminal trial. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular accounts from natural eyewitnesses corroborated by prompt FIR registration, medical evidence, and weapon recovery. However, taking into consideration the juvenility of the appellant, the court modified the sentence from life imprisonment to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the conviction and the sentence under the Arms Ordinance 1965. The key principle laid down is that the relationship of eyewitnesses with the deceased does not render them interested witnesses per se, and their testimony remains reliable if consistent, natural, and corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained primarily on the basis of ocular testimony corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence?
  • Whether juvenility of a convict is a ground for reduction of sentence in a murder case?
  • Does the recovery of a crime weapon on the pointation of an accused serve as valid corroborative evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raza Shah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Others2022 PHC 618 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-20
  civil servanttransfer and postingservice tribunalconstitutional jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicebar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Sub-Divisional Education Officer and civil servant, challenged his transfer order through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, after his appeal before the Service Tribunal was initially returned as premature. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain a constitutional petition regarding the posting and transfer of a civil servant, given the constitutional bar under Article 212. The Peshawar High Court held that matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, including posting and transfer, exclusively fall within the domain and jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212, and the High Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters or issue interim orders. The key principle laid down is that the High Court cannot assume jurisdiction over service matters expressly barred by the Constitution and that posting and transfer disputes must be agitated exclusively before the appropriate Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a petition against the transfer and posting of a civil servant?
  • Do matters relating to the posting and transfer of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Can the High Court direct the Service Tribunal to entertain an appeal or grant interim injunctive relief in service matters where jurisdiction is barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasool vs The State2022 SCP 13, 2022 SCMR 1145, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-01
  narcotic controlpossession of cannabischain of custodyforensic analysisfair trialde-sealing of parcelscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, which convicted the petitioner under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 11.500 kilograms of cannabis. The petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing alleged discrepancies in the weight and texture of the contraband discovered during the de-sealing of parcels in court, and claiming non-compliance with forensic protocols. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, noting that the forensic report was detailed and the chain of custody was established. The Court held that trial judges should not obligingly accede to late-stage requests for de-sealing parcels without plausible reasons, as such requests are often calculated attempts to subvert the prosecution through sinister methods. The Court emphasized that a fair trial is not a one-way affair and requires the accused to act in good faith. Consequently, the Court declined leave to appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court obligated to grant a request for the de-sealing of narcotic parcels during trial without a plausible reason?
  • Does the accused have a duty to conduct themselves in good faith during a fair trial?
  • Can an attempt to contaminate or destroy lawfully collected evidence be treated as a cognizable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Khan vs Muhammad Wajahat Ameer Khan, etc2022 LHC 5935 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasheed vs The State etc.2022 LHC 6295 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-21
  surety bond forfeiturebail bondattachment and sale of propertyimprisonment of suretydue processnarcotic substancescriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge forfeiting the surety bond of the appellant and sentencing him to six months imprisonment under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the trial court complied with the mandatory procedural requirements of section 514 Cr.P.C. before imposing a penalty and ordering the imprisonment of a surety. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court violated the mandatory provisions of section 514 Cr.P.C. by failing to record reasons for imposing the full penalty, omitting to first issue a warrant for the attachment and sale of movable property before resorting to imprisonment, and failing to justify the maximum sentence of imprisonment. The court laid down the principle that the procedure under section 514 Cr.P.C. is mandatory, imprisonment of a surety must be a last resort after exhausting recovery through attachment and sale of movable property, and courts must provide reasons for determining the quantum of penalty and the period of imprisonment in line with the principles of natural justice and Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the procedure outlined in section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for forfeiture of a surety bond is mandatory?
  • Can a court directly order the imprisonment of a surety without first attempting to recover the penalty through the attachment and sale of movable property?
  • Is a court required to provide reasons when determining the quantum of penalty and the period of imprisonment under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What factors should a court consider when assessing the extent to which a surety bond should be forfeited?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan, etc. vs Addl. District Judge, etc.2022 LHC 6525, 2023 CLC 1453, 2022 [M] CLR 1609 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State etc2022 LHC 3171 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-15
  admissibility of evidencehearsay evidenceobjection on admissibilityres gestaerape trialQanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984revision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's application for the exclusion of alleged hearsay evidence and the formal recording and decision of objections regarding the admissibility of testimony during a criminal trial under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve determining whether the testimonies of certain prosecution witnesses constitute admissible relevant facts or prohibited hearsay, and the procedural duty of trial courts to immediately address and decide objections regarding the admissibility of evidence rather than deferring them. The Lahore High Court held that while the testimonies in question formed part of the same transaction and were admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, trial courts are strictly mandated to record and adjudicate upon evidentiary objections at the time they are raised rather than deferring them to the conclusion of the trial. The petition was ultimately dismissed as the specific objections were not clearly articulated in the application, but prospective guidelines on handling admissibility were laid down.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court legally required to decide objections regarding the admissibility of evidence immediately when raised rather than deferring them until the end of the trial?
  • Whether the spontaneous statements and observations of witnesses relating to a transaction constitute admissible evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • What are the distinctions between relevancy and admissibility under the rules of evidence in Pakistani law?
  • Can a judge admit legally inadmissible evidence under any discretionary powers in the interest of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State and another2022 LHC 5311 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-08
  pre-arrest baildishonour of chequemala fidecriminal breachtentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a criminal petition seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of an offence under section 489F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the dishonour of a cheque. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner has made out a case for pre-arrest bail based on mala fides and contradictory investigative material regarding the issuance and purpose of the disputed cheque. The Lahore High Court held that where the investigation reveals serious contradictions concerning the transaction and purpose for which the cheque was issued—specifically undermining the initial prosecution story in the FIR—the petitioner's liability becomes nebulous and mala fides on the part of the complainant can be inferred. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, establishing that sending the accused behind bars serves no useful purpose when nothing remains to be recovered and the prosecution relies primarily on documentary evidence already in police possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when investigation reveals contradictions in the prosecution's version regarding the issuance of a cheque?
  • How can mala fides be established at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  • Does the existence of documentary evidence already in police possession justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State and 07 others2022 LHC 5760, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 363, 2022 YLR 2233 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs State and 7 others2022 PLJ Lahore 886 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Spl. Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-III, Lahore etc2022 LHC 3870, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 187, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1402 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-19
  anti-terrorism courttransfer of caseabduction for ransompremature transferscheduled offencecriminal revisionframing of charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition assails an order passed by the Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, whereby a private complaint case involving offences including abduction for ransom was transferred to an ordinary court under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in transferring the case at a premature stage after framing a charge under a scheduled offence, without recording the statement of the star witness/abductee. The Lahore High Court held that transferring the case prematurely, prior to recording the substantive evidence of the victim, was legally impermissible when a prima facie scheduled offence under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code was already made out through judicial orders of summoning and charge-framing that remained unchallenged. The court laid down the principle that an Anti-Terrorism Court cannot exercise powers under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to transfer a case to an ordinary court before recording the core prosecution evidence to properly ascertain whether a scheduled offence is made out.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Anti-Terrorism Court transfer a case to an ordinary court under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 before recording the statement of the main victim or abductee?
  • Whether the transfer of a case by an Anti-Terrorism Court is legally sustainable when a charge for a scheduled offence has already been framed and remains unchallenged?
  • Does the detention of a person and forced extraction of thumb impressions on stamp papers constitute abduction for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and others vs Chief Executive Officer and others2022 PLC (C.S.) 759 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-10
  constitutional petitioncontract appointment policymerit list validitywithholding of appointment letterspublic functionariesvested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a quasi-judicial order wherein their claim for appointment letters was rejected based on the expiration of the 190-day validity period of the merit list under the Contract Appointment Policy, 2004. The core legal question was whether the statutory period of 190 days for completing the recruitment process and maintaining the validity of the merit list can be used by the authorities to deny appointments when the delay was caused by the administrative inaction of the department itself. The court held that the requirement for the appointing authority to complete the recruitment process within 190 days is directory in nature, and authorities cannot benefit from their own default or the transfer of an official to deprive successfully selected candidates of their vested rights. The court laid down the principle that the administrative delay or failure of government functionaries to complete appointments within the stipulated timeframe does not invalidate a finalized merit list, and denying appointment under such circumstances violates the right to be treated in accordance with law under Article 4 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the statutory period prescribed for the validity of a merit list and completion of recruitment under the Contract Appointment Policy is mandatory or directory?
  • Can public authorities deny appointment letters to successfully selected candidates on the ground of expiration of the recruitment period when the delay is attributable to administrative inaction?
  • Does the failure of government functionaries to complete the recruitment process due to the transfer of an officer violate the candidates' rights under Article 4 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State, etc2022 SCP 182, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 981, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 694, PLJ 2022 SC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-22
  post-arrest bailcross-versionfurther inquirytentative assessmentmurdercriminal procedurebail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order granting post-arrest bail to the respondent in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the mere existence of a cross-version of an occurrence constitutes sufficient grounds to categorize a case as one of "further inquiry" under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in law by granting bail based on an unsubstantiated cross-version without conducting a tentative assessment of the available material. The Court established that the mere existence of a cross-version is not a valid ground for bail unless it is supported by material on record, and the court remains unable to tentatively determine the aggressor. Because the prosecution's case was supported by witness statements and medical evidence, and the accused's version lacked cogent support, the Supreme Court set aside the bail order, emphasizing that courts must perform a tentative assessment to prevent the fabrication of false cross-versions to secure bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere existence of a cross-version of an occurrence automatically entitle an accused to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • What is the duty of a court when assessing a cross-version at the bail stage?
  • Can a High Court's bail order be set aside if it relies on an unsubstantiated cross-version without tentative assessment of the record?
  • When does a case involving a cross-version fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Muhammad Akram, etc2022 LHC 2148 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-24
  appeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocencecriminal appealmurder trialappellate jurisdictionocular evidencemisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, filed under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenges the acquittal of the respondent in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the scope of the High Court's appellate jurisdiction when reviewing an acquittal judgment. The Court held that an acquittal creates a double presumption of innocence, which can only be dislodged by compelling, substantial, and cogent reasons. Finding that the trial court correctly identified the prosecution's failure to establish the presence of eyewitnesses, the lack of corroborative evidence, and the absence of a proven motive, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment reaffirms that appellate interference is restricted to cases where the trial court’s findings are blatantly perverse, illegal, arbitrary, or based on a misreading of evidence. It emphasizes that an acquittal cannot be reversed merely because a different view of the evidence is possible, provided the trial court’s reasoning is not unreasonable or improbable.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal standard for interfering with an acquittal judgment in a criminal case?
  • Does an acquittal by a trial court create a double presumption of innocence for the accused?
  • Can an appellate court reverse an acquittal merely because a contrary view of the evidence is possible?
  • What are the criteria for determining if an appellate court should interfere with a trial court's findings of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Addl. District Judge, Jhang, etc.2022 LHC 7679 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Additional District Judge Sialkot and others2022 YLR 2067 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Mir and 7 others vs Delimitation Authority for Local2022 PLJ AJ&K 138 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and another vs Tasadaq Hussain and another2022 MLD 1232 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-22
  Illegal Dispossession Actadditional evidenceSection 540 CrPCfair trialsummary proceedingslocal commissiondelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged orders from the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, which dismissed their application for additional evidence under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and rejected objections to a local commission report in a case filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow additional evidence at a late stage in summary proceedings. The court held that the trial court’s decision was correct, emphasizing that Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, cannot be invoked to allow a party to fill omissions or improve the quality of previously tendered evidence. The court affirmed that proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, are summary in nature, requiring expeditious disposal to avoid protracted trials. The key principle laid down is that while courts have the power to summon witnesses or take documents for a just decision, such discretion must be exercised judicially to ensure a fair trial under Article 10-A, Constitution of Pakistan 1973, without permitting parties to use such provisions to cause undue delay or re-litigate concluded matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, be used to fill omissions in evidence or improve a party's case?
  • Are proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, summary in nature?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A, Constitution of Pakistan 1973, require the timely disposal of cases under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and another vs Director General, Federal2022 [M] CLR 526 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafi vs Regional Police Officer, etc.2022 LHC 6301 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qayyum vs Federal Service Tribunal and another2022 IHC 86 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim, Mechanic and another vs Superintendent Engineer2022 PLC (C.S) 1270 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-02-14
  writ petitiontemporary employmentpermanent appointmentmerit listestoppelacquiescenceselection processcivil posts
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974 by temporary employees serving as Mechanic and Driver in the Public Health Engineering Building Division. The petitioners sought to restrain the department from cancelling their alleged appointment orders, to set aside the appointment of private respondents, and to secure their own permanent induction following an advertised recruitment process. The core legal questions centered on whether temporary or work-charge employees are entitled to automatic permanent absorption against civil posts, and whether candidates who participate in a competitive selection process and fail can subsequently challenge the results. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that permanent appointment to a civil post must strictly follow open competition, advertisement, and merit as mandated by law. Furthermore, having actively participated in the selection process without attaining the requisite merit, the petitioners were barred under the doctrines of estoppel and acquiescence from assailing the process or the appointments of successful candidates.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee appointed on a temporary or work-charge basis claim permanent appointment or absorption against a vacant civil post as a matter of right?
  • Does participation in a competitive recruitment process bar an unsuccessful candidate from subsequently challenging the selection process under the principles of estoppel and acquiescence?
  • Can the High Court exercise its equitable constitutional jurisdiction in favour of a litigant who has acquiesced in a selection process and only challenged it upon failing to secure merit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs Election Commission of Pakistan & Others2022 SHC 330 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim Bhutto vs The State2022 SHC 166, 2024 YLR 1474 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-14
  criminal appealanti-corruptionmisappropriationbenefit of doubthearsay evidenceadverse inferenceacquittal of co-accuseddelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, convicting the appellant under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved the charge of misappropriation beyond reasonable doubt despite inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, reliance on hearsay evidence, non-examination of vital witnesses, and the acquittal of a co-accused on the same set of facts. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The court held that inadmissible hearsay evidence, unexplained delay in the FIR, non-production of material witnesses attracting adverse inferences under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and the principle of consistency regarding the acquittal of a co-accused create insurmountable loopholes in the prosecution's case, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging an FIR weaken the prosecution's case?
  • Whether the evidence of witnesses who possess no direct or personal knowledge of the alleged offence constitutes inadmissible hearsay under Article 71 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can an accused claim the benefit of an adverse inference when the prosecution fails to examine vital witnesses without offering a valid explanation?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal on the principle of equity and consistency when a co-accused has already been acquitted on the same set of facts and evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qaseem vs Mst. Farida Khan and others2022 CLC 1670 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-07-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Noman Khan vs The State and another2022 YLR 1368 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-06
  post-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustprohibitory clauseconfession to policefurther inquiryfundamental rightsinadmissible evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of criminal breach of trust regarding a vehicle. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the lack of independent evidence, the inadmissibility of a confession made to police, and the fact that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, emphasizing that in non-bailable offences not falling within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The Court further held that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and that mere involvement in other criminal cases, without conviction, does not disentitle an accused to bail. The principle established is that liberty is a fundamental right, and bail should be granted in such cases unless exceptional circumstances exist.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confession made to a police officer admissible as evidence against an accused person?
  • Does the mere involvement of an accused in other criminal cases, without conviction, disentitle them to the grant of bail?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule or the exception for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of a confession made to the police when no other independent evidence is available?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Noman & another vs The State etc.2022 PHC 428 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Niqab vs NBP, Takht Bhai Branch, District Mardan2022 PHC 560 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Niaz vs The State and others2022 SCMR 1834 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-10
  pre-arrest bailrule of consistencyco-accusedparityattempt to commit qatl-i-amdPunjab Arms Amendment Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 324, 337-H(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with Section 11-B of the Punjab Arms Amendment Ordinance, 2015. The petitioner had been denied pre-arrest bail by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail under the rule of consistency where a co-accused with similar role had already been granted confirmed pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court observed that co-accused Muhammad Bilal, who was similarly nominated for firing in the air, had been granted pre-arrest bail, which was confirmed and not challenged by the complainant or the injured respondent. Finding that the petitioner's case was indistinguishable and at par with the co-accused, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner under the rule of consistency.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to pre-arrest bail under the rule of consistency if a co-accused with an identical role has already been granted confirmed pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether the failure of the complainant or injured party to challenge the grant of pre-arrest bail to an equally placed co-accused entitles other similarly situated accused to the concession of bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be denied to an accused whose case is admittedly indistinguishable from that of a co-accused who was granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazim etc vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1459 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-01
  murderprivate complaintbenefit of doubtelectronic evidencememory cardcontradictionocular accountcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Muhammad Nazim, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Rashid Mehmood during a private complaint proceeding, alongside connected revision and acquittal appeal matters. The core legal questions involved the admissibility and evidentiary value of a memory card containing video clips of the incident supplied under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the reliability of ocular testimony contradicted by real electronic evidence, the validity of a weapon recovery from an open public space, and the standard of proof required in criminal cases. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of eyewitnesses, that electronic video clips provided under Section 265-C can be validly used for contradiction and as real evidence, and that uncorroborated medical and forensic evidence cannot sustain a conviction when reasonable doubt exists. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution must stand on its own legs to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an electronic document such as a memory card supplied to the accused under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be used for contradicting eyewitness accounts?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of forensic and recovery evidence when the primary ocular witnesses are proven to be absent from the crime scene?
  • Whether the prosecution is strictly bound to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt before the defence plea or alternate hypotheses are examined by the court?
  • Does a recovery effected from an open public space accessible to the general public carry absolute evidentiary value without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State through P.G. and others2022 SCP 130, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 992, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 173, PLD 2022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  common objectcommon intentionindividual liabilityqatl-e-amdmurdertrial court guidelinesremandanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgments of the lower courts arising from a case involving murder and physical injuries under Sections 302/324/148/149 PPC and Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question revolves around whether trial courts can charge accused persons for committing crimes in furtherance of a common object or common intention under Sections 148, 149, or 34 PPC, but subsequently decide the case and assign convictions based solely on individual liability without recording a definite finding on the applicability of joint liability. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a trial court must render a definite and reasoned judicial finding regarding common intention or common object at the conclusion of a trial, and cannot convict on the basis of individual liability when a crime is found to be committed in furtherance of common intent or object. The Court laid down mandatory guidelines for trial courts concerning charge framing, evaluation of evidence, and proper application of the different clauses of Section 302 PPC.

  Questions settled

  • Is it legally permissible for a trial court to frame charges based on unlawful assembly and common object under Sections 148/149 PPC but subsequently decide the case on the basis of individual liability without a definite finding?
  • What are the mandatory legal prerequisites for the application of Section 302(a) PPC read with Section 304 PPC and Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • When should Section 302(c) PPC be applied by a court in a criminal homicide trial?
  • What specific guidelines must trial courts follow when framing charges and rendering judgments in murder cases involving multiple assailants?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 565 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-10
  murderbenefit of doubtocular evidencechance witnesscriminal appealacquittalmedical evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the murder of the complainant's father. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of the ocular account and the consistency of the medical evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses whose presence was doubtful, and the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's timeline and distance claims. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was rendered immaterial by a negative forensic report. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case by standing on its own legs without relying on defence weaknesses, and any single circumstance creating doubt in the prosecution's narrative is sufficient to entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be maintained when the eye-witnesses are classified as chance witnesses without credible explanation for their presence?
  • Does a negative forensic report regarding the recovery of a weapon render the recovery immaterial to the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case independently without relying on the weaknesses of the defence?
  • Does a discrepancy between the time of death and the post-mortem examination duration create sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Additional District Judge, etc2022 IHC 50 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and others vs Rajabuddin Kalhoro2022 SHC 98 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz alias Nazi & another vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1091 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-20
  Qatl-i-Amddefective chargeplea of alibicriminal appealprocedural irregularityocular evidenceabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of two brothers for the murder of the deceased, Nasir Ali. The appellants contended that the trial court’s charge was defective due to the omission of Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and that the failure to frame a joint charge after the submission of a supplementary report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, vitiated the trial. They further argued that the prosecution failed to produce all witnesses and that one appellant’s plea of alibi was ignored. The Court held that an omission in a charge is not fatal unless it misleads the accused or causes a failure of justice, which was not demonstrated here. Furthermore, procedural irregularities regarding the joint charge did not invalidate the proceedings. The Court affirmed that the prosecution is not required to produce every witness, emphasizing quality over quantity. Finally, the Court rejected the plea of alibi, noting it was not raised at the first opportunity and lacked substantiation. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of a specific section of law in a charge sheet automatically vitiate a criminal trial?
  • Is a trial court required to re-frame a joint charge against co-accused after the submission of a supplementary report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained if the prosecution fails to produce every cited witness in a criminal case?
  • What is the evidentiary requirement for a plea of alibi to be considered valid in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naveed Butt & another vs Mst. Balqees Akhtar (deceased)2022 LHC 4038 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Naveed Akhtar vs Mst. Ghazala Batool, etc2022 LHC 4837, 2022 PLJ Lahore 744 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem Javed vs Anjuman-e-Asna Ashria and another2022 CLC 830 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs Govt of KPK & Others2022 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs Govt of KP & Others2022 PHC 450 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2022 SCP 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-25
  civil servantpublic servantstatutory corporationwrit jurisdictionemployment statusNational Bank of PakistanPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant petition challenged a High Court judgment affirming that employees of the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) are not "civil servants" or "government servants." The core legal question was whether the classification of NBP employees as "public servants" under Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 confers upon them the civil status of government servants. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the definition of "public servant" in the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is exclusively for the application of substantive and procedural criminal law and does not determine civil status or employment capacity. The Court clarified that while the NBP is a statutory body amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, it remains a separate juristic person distinct from the Federal Government. Consequently, NBP employees do not fall within the definition of civil servants under the Civil Servants Act 1973. The principle established is that criminal law definitions of "public servant" cannot be conflated with civil service status or employment under the Federal Government.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'public servant' in the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 confer the status of a civil servant on an employee?
  • Are employees of the National Bank of Pakistan considered government servants under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Does the amenability of a statutory corporation to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 make its employees civil servants?
  • Is the definition of 'public servant' in the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable to determine civil status?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Mir vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2022 LHC 7703 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Khan vs The Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary2022 IHC 136 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Khan and another vs Muqadas Khan (decd) through LRs and others2022 PLJ SC 156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-26
  pardanashin ladyburden of proofmutation cancellationpleadingscommission to examine witnessadverse inferencefraudulent mutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a civil revision against the concurrent dismissal of the appellants' suit for cancellation of mutation entries allegedly recorded through fraud. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the burden of proof shifted to the beneficiary given that an executant was a pardanashin and illiterate lady, and whether the lower fora considered this aspect. The Supreme Court held that no plea of a pardanashin or illiterate lady was ever raised in the pleadings or courts below, and parties cannot lead evidence beyond pleadings. It further held that while the burden of proof heavily lies on the beneficiary of a transaction executed by a pardanashin or illiterate woman to prove free will and understanding, such a status must be specifically pleaded and proved, and cannot be used as an afterthought. Furthermore, procedural mechanisms such as issuing a commission under the Code of Civil Procedure exist for examining pardanashin women without compelling their public appearance. Finding no misreading of evidence or grounds for interference, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the status of a pardanashin or illiterate lady must be specifically pleaded in order to claim the benefit of the protective rules regarding burden of proof?
  • Where a transaction is executed by a pardanashin or illiterate woman, upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish its genuine and voluntary nature?
  • Can a party who fails to produce a material witness withhold such evidence without attracting an adverse inference?
  • What procedural mechanisms are available under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for recording the evidence of pardanashin women exempted from personal appearance in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Khan and another vs Muqadas Khan (decd) through L.Rs. and another2022 PLD Supreme Court 99 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-26
  Civil AppealMutation cancellationFraudPardanashin ladyIlliterate ladyBurden of proofWithholding evidenceCommission for evidenceCivil Procedure CodeQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Appeal challenged the dismissal of a suit for cancellation of mutation entries, which the appellants alleged were obtained through fraud. The core legal question examined was whether the burden of proof shifted to the beneficiary when one executant was a parda-nashin and illiterate lady, and if lower courts adequately considered this aspect. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no justification to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Court held that the plea of a "pardanashin or illiterate lady" was not raised in the plaint, appeal, or revision application before any forum, nor in the instant Civil Appeal, except for the leave granting order. While discussing the principles, the Court reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the beneficiary of a transaction with a pardanashin or illiterate lady, requiring proof of free will, understanding, and often independent advice. However, such a plea must be specifically raised in pleadings. The Court also elaborated on the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (Sections 132, 75, Order XXVI Rule 1) for recording evidence via commission for exempted women, and highlighted the adverse inference for withholding evidence under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Hassan vs The State through P.G., Punjab and another2022 PSC CRI 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-01
  post-arrest bailsupplementary statementbelated nominationfurther inquirymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where the accused was not nominated in the initial FIR but named belatedly in a supplementary statement by the complainant who claimed he simply forgot, especially when a co-accused was granted bail and another declared innocent during investigation. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the High Court's order and granting post-arrest bail to the appellant. The Court held that the unexplained belated nomination through a supplementary statement, combined with the bail granted to a co-accused and the exoneration of another, brings the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court also criticized the investigative officer and prosecution for failing to produce necessary case papers and emphasized the need for digital transmission of court records.

  Questions settled

  • Does a belated nomination in a supplementary statement by a complainant who claims to have forgotten to name the accused in the initial FIR make the case one of further inquiry?
  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when a co-accused has been admitted to bail and another declared innocent during the investigation?
  • What are the consequences of an investigating officer failing to bring relevant police papers and the challan to court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Hassan vs State through P.G., Punjab and another2022 SCMR 523, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 83 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-01
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirysupplementary statementbelated nominationmurderco-accusedinvestigating officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arose from a post-arrest bail application in a murder case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, along with co-accused, was not nominated in the initial First Information Report (FIR) by the complainant, who claimed to be an eyewitness but only named them in a belated supplementary statement, asserting he had forgotten to do so earlier. Furthermore, one co-accused was granted bail without challenge, and another was declared innocent during the investigation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether these circumstances made the petitioner's case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the delayed nomination via a supplementary statement, coupled with the inconsistent treatment of the co-accused, created a case of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a belated nomination of an accused through a supplementary statement by an eyewitness who claims he forgot to nominate them in the FIR makes the case one of further inquiry?
  • Does the grant of bail to one co-accused and the declaration of innocence of another during investigation undermine the complainant's supplementary statement for the purposes of bail?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted where the prosecution's case is shrouded in mystery and lacks consistent nomination of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Akhtar vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 116 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-06
  post-arrest bailforgerycriminal breach of trustprevention of corruptionprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Naeem Akhtar, who was accused in FIR No. 04 of 2021 registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The complainant alleged that the petitioner, in collusion with the Secretary of the Union Council, forged a death certificate for the complainant's grandmother. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the case and the nature of the alleged offenses. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that he had been incarcerated since August 2021, was no longer required for investigation, and had gained no benefit from the alleged forged document. Furthermore, the court observed that the offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, establishing the principle that in such cases, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the lack of benefit derived from an alleged forged document constitute a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadim s/o Pervaiz Akhtar vs The State and another2022 SCP 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-08
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencydoctrine of parityfurther inquiryabductioncriminal procedureprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order declining post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case involving abduction and hurt. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly in light of the rule of consistency (parity) given that co-accused facing similar allegations had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's case warranted the grant of bail. The Court reasoned that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant procedural law, and the role assigned to the petitioner was indistinguishable from that of co-accused who had already been released. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the object of a trial is not to punish an under-trial prisoner but to ensure their presence, and that detention without reasonable grounds is unjustified. The key principles laid down are that the doctrine of parity requires that where ascribed roles are identical, the benefit of bail extended to one accused should be extended to others, and that bail should be granted when reasonable doubt exists regarding an accused's participation in a crime.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of parity in bail matters require that an accused be granted bail if co-accused with similar roles have already been released?
  • When does a case qualify for 'further inquiry' under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the context of bail applications?
  • What criteria must be met for the prosecution to successfully oppose bail under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the grant of bail appropriate when the prosecution fails to provide sufficient material to establish reasonable grounds for believing an accused is guilty of a non-bailable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 285 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-30
  murder referenceocular evidenceabsconsiondeath sentenceqatl-i-amdcriminal appealnatural witnessesappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction of Muhammad Nadeem for the double murder of Muhammad Ishaq and Zubaida Bibi, and the attempted murder of Tasleem Bibi. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of the ocular account provided by the victims' family members, the evidentiary value of the appellant's absconsion, and the appropriateness of the death sentence. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent ocular testimony from natural witnesses present at the scene, which was corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon. The Court affirmed that the appellant’s absconsion for ten months provided further corroboration of guilt. Regarding sentencing, the Court found no mitigating circumstances to warrant leniency, characterizing the crime as a brutal, cold-blooded murder. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, confirmed the death sentence, and upheld the acquittal of the co-accused due to insufficient evidence of abetment. The judgment reaffirms that the testimony of natural witnesses is highly credible and that absconsion serves as a significant adverse inference against an accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of natural witnesses who are inmates of the house where the crime occurred be relied upon?
  • Does the absconsion of an accused serve as corroborative evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Is the substitution of a single accused by relatives of the deceased a plausible defense theory?
  • Can a death sentence be maintained where the crime is committed with extreme brutality?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem vs Muhammad Khurram Iqbal and another2022 SCP 3, 2022 SCMR 1168, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 663 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-17
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationmoney lendingcoerced affidavitextraordinary equitable jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from an order passed by the Lahore High Court granting pre-arrest bail to the respondent in a criminal case registered under the Punjab Prohibition of Private Money Lending Act, 2007. The core legal question concerns the propriety of extending pre-arrest bail in a matter involving allegations of illegal money lending and coerced affidavits. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in granting pre-arrest bail based on an arbitration deed and an affidavit that police investigation confirmed were secured through duress and coercion. The Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary equitable remedy meant to protect the innocent from abuse of process, not a substitute for post-arrest bail or a routine measure for every criminal case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent was cancelled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be sustained when the supporting affidavit and arbitration deed are shown to be secured through duress and coercion?
  • Is pre-arrest bail a substitute for post-arrest bail in ordinary criminal cases?
  • What are the parameters for the exercise of extraordinary equitable jurisdiction while granting pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem Akber vs Province of Sindh & Others2022 SHC 202 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-23
  deputationout-of-cadre transferrecruitment rulescivil servantadministrative cadreteaching cadreconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the notification whereby the services of respondent No.5, an Associate Professor of Physics belonging to the College Education Department, were placed on deputation as Director Inspection and Registration of Private Institutions within the School Education and Literacy Department. The core legal question was whether a teaching cadre officer from one department can be transferred out-of-cadre to an administrative cadre post in violation of existing recruitment rules and established service jurisprudence. The Sindh High Court allowed the petition, holding that out-of-cadre transfers and stopgap arrangements of teaching staff to administrative cadre posts contrary to notified recruitment rules are illegal. The court laid down the principle that civil servant cadres are not interchangeable at the whims of executive authorities, and statutory recruitment rules must be strictly adhered to regarding appointments by transfer and promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant belonging to the teaching cadre can be transferred out-of-cadre to hold an administrative post in violation of notified recruitment rules?
  • Can the executive government make stopgap arrangements by posting out-of-cadre officers in disregard of statutory recruitment rules?
  • Does Rule 9(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 permit horizontal movement of a civil servant from their original cadre to another cadre against the statutory scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nabi alias Nabikho vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1208 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-04-13
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtunnatural conduct of witnessesocular evidencemedical evidenceacquittalhearsay evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while a connected criminal revision petition seeks enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the provided ocular and circumstantial evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court observed that the alleged eye-witnesses exhibited unnatural conduct by failing to intervene during the altercation or assist the injured victim, rendering their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the court determined that hearsay evidence from the complainant was insufficient, and medical evidence, while confirming the cause of death, could not corroborate the identity of the assailant. Emphasizing that the prosecution must prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt, the court reiterated that even a slight doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the revision petition for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does medical evidence alone suffice to corroborate the identity of an accused in a murder case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the conduct of alleged eye-witnesses is found to be unnatural?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a reasonable doubt exists regarding their guilt?
  • Does hearsay evidence from a complainant who did not witness the crime carry evidentiary value?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mustansar Khan vs The State, etc2022 IHC 172 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mustafa Qureshi vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1264 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-01
  post-arrest bailplea of alibifurther inquiryreasonable groundsmurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition for post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning his alleged involvement in a murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on a plea of alibi, supported by CCTV footage and bank records, despite the complainant's contention that the petitioner was involved due to his relationship with the co-accused. The Court observed that while the prosecution alleged the petitioner's presence at the crime scene, the police investigation and subsequent verification of CCTV footage placed the petitioner at a bank during the relevant time. The Court held that where the material on record allows for a second view or reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt, the benefit must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, affirming that if there exists any possibility of a second view of the material available on the record, the accused is entitled to relief under the spirit of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail when there exists a possibility of a second view of the material available on the record?
  • Does the verification of a plea of alibi by the police during investigation constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution's case rests on the accused's relationship with a co-accused despite conflicting evidence regarding the accused's presence at the scene of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mussawar Abbasi vs Lubna Manzoor & Another2022 IHC 38 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Musawar Abbasi vs The State and another2022 IHC 198, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1484 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-20
  pre-arrest bailcancellation of bailcriminal breach of trustcontractual disputeentrustment of propertyspecific performancemens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent in a case involving an alleged criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a failure to transfer land after receiving payment constitutes criminal breach of trust or merely a civil contractual dispute. The court held that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, governed by the Contract Act, 1872 and the Specific Relief Act, 1877, rather than criminal law. It reasoned that the payment of money for land purchase does not constitute 'entrustment' as required by Section 405 and Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as there was no requirement to retain and return the specific funds. Furthermore, the court emphasized that bail cancellation requires strong and exceptional grounds, such as misuse of liberty or interference with evidence, which were not demonstrated here. The principle laid down is that contractual breaches, absent a clear element of entrustment and mens rea, do not satisfy the criteria for criminal breach of trust.

  Questions settled

  • Does a breach of a contract for the sale of land constitute the offense of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the legal distinction between the payment of money for a transaction and the entrustment of property?
  • What are the established grounds for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Can a dispute arising from a breach of an agreement to sell be treated as a criminal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Musawar Abbasi vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1484 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-20
  pre-arrest bailcancellation of bailcriminal breach of trustentrustmentcivil liabilityspecific performancecontractual dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent in a case involving an alleged criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a failure to transfer land after receiving payment pursuant to a verbal agreement constitutes 'criminal breach of trust' under Section 406, and whether the bail order should be recalled. The Court held that the transaction was a civil matter governed by the Contract Act 1872 and the Specific Relief Act 1877, rather than a criminal offence. It reasoned that the payment of money for a land purchase does not constitute 'entrustment' as required for criminal breach of trust, as the money was not to be preserved or returned but utilized for a purpose. The Court affirmed that breach of a contract is not synonymous with criminal breach of trust. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the bail order was illegal or that the respondent had misused the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to transfer property after receiving payment under an agreement to sell constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is there a legal distinction between the payment of money for a purpose and the 'entrustment' of property required for the offence of criminal breach of trust?
  • What are the established grounds for the cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a breach of a contract be equated with criminal breach of trust without evidence of mens rea and clear entrustment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Musa Khan vs Mst. Ansa Mariam Rasheea Zamania and 22022 CLC 1552 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Murad Bhutto vs Lal Bux Kosh and others2022 SHC 410 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-16
  illegal dispossessiondirect complaintdouble jeopardytaking cognizancerecording evidencecriminal revisionland grabbers
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application assails an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC Ubauro, whereby the trial court declined to take cognizance in a direct complaint filed under Sections 3 and 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The applicant alleged that the respondents illegally occupied his agricultural land and attempted to dispossess him by force. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the matter was of a civil nature and that previous criminal proceedings under the Pakistan Penal Code barred the action. The core legal question was whether a direct complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is barred by previous proceedings and acquittal under the Pakistan Penal Code on the principle of double jeopardy, and whether the trial court could dismiss the complaint without recording evidence. The Sindh High Court held that proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and the Pakistan Penal Code are distinct, serving different purposes and remedies, thus not attracting double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 or Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down that a trial court cannot dismiss a direct complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act without recording evidence and evaluating the claims on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a previous trial and acquittal under the Pakistan Penal Code bar subsequent proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 on the principle of double jeopardy?
  • Can a trial court dismiss a direct complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 without recording the evidence of the parties?
  • Are offences under the Pakistan PenalCode and the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 distinct offences arising from separate legislative domains?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz Khan vs Government of Punjab through Chief2022 PLC (C.S.) 604 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-24
  contractual employeewrit jurisdictionservice mattertermination of servicebogus documentsconstitutional petitionpublic duty
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a contractual driver in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, challenged the termination of his services following the discovery that his driving license was bogus, a condition explicitly prohibited by his appointment letter. The appellant had previously filed a constitutional petition against his dismissal, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on the grounds that contractual service disputes cannot be adjudicated through constitutional jurisdiction. Upon appeal, the Lahore High Court examined whether a contractual employee could invoke writ jurisdiction for service-related grievances. The Court held that the termination was lawful as it adhered to the specific terms of the appointment contract. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is not available to contractual employees seeking redress for service matters, as such disputes lack the requisite statutory obligation necessary to compel the performance of a public duty. Consequently, the Court upheld the dismissal of the constitutional petition, ruling that contractual service terms are not enforceable through writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contractual employee invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the termination of their services?
  • Does the termination of a contractual employee based on the discovery of forged documents constitute a violation of statutory duty?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable for the enforcement of contractual obligations arising from employment in a public department?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz and another vs Government of Punjab through Secretary Services and General Administration Department and others2022 PLJ Lahore 562 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mudasar vs The State2022 IHC 108 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-14
  criminal revision petitionsurety bondforfeiture of suretyjumped bailabsconding accusedpenalty reductionCNSA
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this criminal revision petition, the petitioner assailed an order passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (CNS), Islamabad, whereby a penalty of Rs.300,000/- was imposed upon him as a surety for an accused who jumped bail. The core legal questions involved the legality of the forfeiture of the surety bond and the imposition of penalty upon the surety's failure to produce the absconding accused. The court held that all necessary procedural steps for the forfeiture of the bail bond under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had been duly complied with, and that no lenient view should be taken in matters of sureties to prevent accused persons from absconding. The court laid down the principle that while courts must avoid undue leniency that encourages absconding, a balance must be maintained to prevent undue severity that discourages individuals from acting as sureties, and found no illegality in the impugned order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a penalty can be imposed upon a surety when the accused jumps bail and fails to appear before the trial court?
  • Are necessary legal steps required to be followed prior to the forfeiture of a bail bond under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What considerations must a court keep in mind while determining the penalty for a surety who fails to produce an absconding accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mohsin Raza vs Additional District Judge, Jatoi, District2022 LHC 7184 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Mohsin Khan Joya vs Member (Judl-VIII) Bor etc2022 LHC 2720 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Maqsood vs Tauheed Sultan through Attorney and 7 others2022 CLC 509 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Maqsood son of Muhammad Yaseen, Muhammad Saleem2022 SHC 580, 2024 YLR 2656 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-15
  anti-terrorism actpolice encounterfirearm recoveryunlicensed pistolappreciation of evidencepolice witnessescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the consolidated judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under Sections 353, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and Section 23(i)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act 2013. The core legal questions involve whether the alleged police encounter and firearm recovery constituted an act of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and whether the testimonies of police officials regarding arrest and recovery are sufficient for conviction in the absence of private witnesses. The Sindh High Court held that fleeing from police and firing to escape does not constitute terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 unless committed with the specific design or intent specified in the statute, setting aside the terrorism conviction and sentence. However, the court maintained the convictions under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Sindh Arms Act 2013, holding that prompt FIRs, credible police testimony, and corroborative forensic evidence proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that grave offences do not qualify as terrorism unless they meet the specific legislative design requirements under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony remains reliable absent proof of ill-will.

  Questions settled

  • Does an attempt to escape from police by firing at them constitute terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can police officials be regarded as reliable witnesses for arrest and recovery in the absence of private independent witnesses?
  • Whether minor discrepancies in prosecution evidence are sufficient to vitiate a conviction?
  • Does the gravity or brutal nature of an offence alone bring it within the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Maqsood Aslam vs Province of Punjab, etc2022 LHC 4788, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 116 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-03
  pensionary benefitsdeputationliensuperannuationretirement notificationparent departmentfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought a direction for respondents to issue his retirement notification and release pensionary benefits along with outstanding salaries. The core legal question involved determining whether the petitioner remained an employee of University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, or stood transferred to University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila, under Section 3 of the University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila Act, 1994, given that he was serving on deputation in the Irrigation Department at the time of the Taxila campus's conversion into an independent university. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was not physically serving at the Taxila Campus at the time of the enactment and remained on deputation without permanent absorption in the borrowing department, his lien with his parent department (UET, Lahore) was intact. The Court ruled that pensionary benefits are a fundamental right and property protected under the Constitution, and ordered UET, Lahore to issue the retirement notification and pay all pensionary benefits and dues, collecting contributions from other departments if necessary. The key principle laid down is that a deputationist who is never permanently absorbed in a borrowing department retains his lien with the parent department, which remains ultimately responsible for settling his retirement and pensionary benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee on deputation at the time of the creation of a new university out of a sub-campus stands transferred to the new university if he was not physically serving at that sub-campus?
  • Does a deputationist lose his lien in his parent department if he is never permanently absorbed in the borrowing department?
  • Is the right to receive pensionary benefits protected under the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Which department is ultimately responsible for collecting pension contributions and disbursing retirement benefits to an employee who served on deputation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Majid vs Dr. Muhammad Shahid Iqbal2022 LHC 6727 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-15
  contempt of courtproceedings against dead personnullity in lawcivil contemptofficial designationsubstitution of parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This contempt of court petition was filed under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 read with sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, seeking initiation of proceedings against the Medical Superintendent of Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, for non-compliance with a previous court order directing the decision of the petitioner's departmental application regarding unpaid salary. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the cited Medical Superintendent had died two years prior to the filing of the writ petition. The Lahore High Court addressed the core legal questions concerning the validity of legal proceedings initiated against a deceased sole respondent and the maintainability of a contempt petition under such circumstances. The Court held that any legal proceedings, including a contempt petition, filed against a sole respondent who was already dead at the time of institution are void ab initio and a nullity in the eyes of law, prohibiting the substitution of a dead respondent with the current incumbent in the same petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, while clarifying that the original writ order remains valid against the current office-holder and the petitioner may file a fresh petition if aggrieved.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a contempt of court petition filed against a sole respondent who was already dead at the time of its institution is maintainable?
  • Can legal proceedings instituted against a dead person be cured by substituting the deceased respondent with the current incumbent of the office?
  • What is the legal status of an order or decree passed against a person who had already passed away prior to the initiation of proceedings?
  • Does an order passed against an official by designation rather than by name remain valid and binding on subsequent incumbents of that office?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mahmood and 3 others vs Imtiaz Sheraz and 17th others2022 CLC 1836 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs The State and another2022 LHC 8632 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Lal vs Muhammad Hanif and others2022 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 131 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-06-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Laeeq and 34 others vs Sindh Alkalies Limited and 2 others2022 CLD 256 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khursheed Shinwari vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 IHC 126 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and 9 others vs Abid Hussain Shah and 6 others2022 PLJ AJ&K 97 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-07-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalil vs Pakistan Telecommunication Limited & another2022 SHC 328 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-20
  wrongful dismissalstatutory rulesmaster and servantdamages for terminationPTCL employeesefficiency and discipline rules
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, an employee originally of the defunct Telephone and Telegraph Department whose service transferred to Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and damages following his removal from service pursuant to a departmental inquiry. The core legal questions involved whether the plaintiff's terms and conditions of service were governed by statutory rules or the non-statutory PTCL Service Regulations, 1996, and whether he was entitled to reinstatement or general and special damages for wrongful dismissal. The court held that the disciplinary proceedings against former T&T Department employees transferred to PTCL were required to be conducted under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, rather than the 1996 Regulations, rendering the removal unlawful. Because the plaintiff abandoned the prayer for reinstatement and sought damages instead, the court awarded general damages to compensate for future economic loss, mental agony, and physical stress. The key principle laid down is that where an employee's statutory terms and conditions of service are protected upon corporate transformation, disciplinary actions must strictly follow the prescribed statutory rules, and wrongful dismissal entitles the employee to general damages for economic and non-pecuniary losses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the service terms and conditions of employees originally belonging to the defunct Telephone and Telegraph Department transferred to Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited are statutory in nature?
  • Whether disciplinary proceedings against transferred PTCL employees are governed by the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 or the PTCL Service Regulations, 1996?
  • Can an employee claim general damages for mental agony, physical stress, and loss of reputation upon a wrongful dismissal from service?
  • How should a High Court approach conflicting decisions rendered by co-equal benches of the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalil Ahmad vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 410 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-14
  murder referencechance witnessbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencecriminal appealdeath sentenceSection 342 statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for the murder of the appellant's wife. The core legal questions concern the reliability of the ocular account provided by alleged chance witnesses and the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence regarding motive and recovery. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It found the eye-witnesses to be chance witnesses who failed to provide a plausible explanation for their presence at the crime scene, rendering their testimony suspect. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged motive was never put to the accused during his examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and thus could not be used against him. Additionally, the forensic report regarding the recovery weapon was negative. Emphasizing that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits and that any single circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to acquittal, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be accepted without a convincing explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Can a motive not put to the accused during his examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used against him?
  • Does medical evidence alone suffice to identify an assailant in a criminal trial?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case on its own merits without relying on the weaknesses of the defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs Mst. Shehnaz Begum and others2022 YLR 2402 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid Munir vs Nazar Sadiq and another2022 MLD 831 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid Javed vs State etc2022 PLJ Lahore 634 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-25
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailanti-terrorism actpendency of appealpunishment in advanceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Khalid Javed, seeking the suspension of his sentences and release on bail pending the adjudication of his criminal appeal against a conviction by the Anti-Terrorism Court. The petitioner had been convicted under Sections 11-W, 11-F(6), 11-H(2), and 11-O of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, receiving a maximum sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's sentence should be suspended during the pendency of his appeal, given the likelihood that he might serve a substantial portion or the entirety of his sentence before the appeal could be decided. The Court held that keeping the petitioner incarcerated for an indefinite period, where the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future, would effectively amount to punishment in advance. Consequently, the Court accepted the application, suspended the sentence, and granted bail, emphasizing that the right to appeal should not be rendered nugatory by the passage of time during which a prisoner serves their sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended pending appeal if the appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future?
  • Does the incarceration of a convict for a short sentence during the pendency of an appeal amount to punishment in advance?
  • Is the suspension of a sentence permissible when there is a risk that the appellant might serve the entire sentence before the appeal is decided?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid etc vs Market Committee Muzaffargarh etc2022 PLJ Lahore 76 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid and others vs Additional District Judge and others2022 MLD 1363 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid Ali Khan vs Court of Minister of Cooperation, Sindh and others2022 CLC 1054 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kashif vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 564 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-22
  post-arrest bailrobberytest identification paradedelay in FIRspeedy trialcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Muhammad Kashif in connection with FIR No. 502 dated 07.10.2020 registered at Police Station Tibba Sultanpur, District Vehari, under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the unexplained delay in reporting the crime, the failure to conduct a test identification parade where the accused was initially unknown, and the completion of recovery rendering physical custody unnecessary. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The court held that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, lack of a test identification parade for an unknown accused, non-requirement of further physical custody after recovery, and the right to a speedy trial without suffering pre-trial incarceration as a form of punishment constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in reporting an offense justifies the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is a test identification parade mandatory when an accused is not previously known to the complainant or witnesses?
  • Does the completion of recovery from an accused obviate the need for further physical custody by the investigating agency?
  • Whether continuous and indefinite detention of an accused without material progress in the trial amounts to advance punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kashif vs Additional District Judge and 3 Others2022 MLD 1995 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-17Read full judgment →