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.

• Maria Rafique vs National Electrical Power Regulatory Authority And Another2022 IHC 36 · Islamabad High Court
  constitutional petitioncontractual employeemaster and servantmaintainabilitynon-statutory rulestermination of serviceaudi alteram partemnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged her termination as Legal Advisor of the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. She contended that her sudden termination without notice or hearing violated principles of natural justice, audi alteram partem, and due process under Article 10A of the Constitution. The Islamabad High Court examined whether a constitutional writ petition is maintainable for a contractual employee serving under non-statutory service rules. The Court held that the relationship between a contractual employee and a statutory body with non-statutory rules is governed by the principle of master and servant. Termination executed in accordance with contractual terms (such as payment of salary in lieu of notice) does not violate natural justice. Furthermore, allegations of mala fide action involve factual questions requiring evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed as non-maintainable without deciding the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional writ petition maintainable against termination by a contractual employee of a statutory authority lacking statutory service rules?
  • Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply to the termination of a contractual employee where the contract permits termination by payment of salary in lieu of notice?
  • Can allegations of mala fide termination of employment be resolved in constitutional writ jurisdiction without recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Maratib Ali Alvi vs Punjab Bar Council through Chairman2022 PLJ Lahore 282 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-26Read full judgment →
• Maratab Mukhtar vs Government of the Punjab etc.2022 LHC 2305 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-03Read full judgment →
• Maratab Mukhtar vs Government of the Punjab and others2022 PCRLJ 1293 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-03
  medico-legal examinationcross-version caseexpert opinionfair trialDistrict Standing Medical BoardProvincial Standing Medical Boardconstitutional petitionmedical jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  In this constitutional petition, the petitioner challenged a Magistrate's order refusing to refer his medico-legal examination to the Provincial Standing Medical Board (PSMB). The petitioner, accused in a cross-version criminal case, had initially been examined by a medical officer who opined his injuries were caused by a firearm. However, a District Standing Medical Board (DSMB) subsequently concluded the injuries were not firearm-related. The petitioner sought a PSMB review, alleging political influence on the DSMB. The Lahore High Court held that the DSMB's opinion was deficient in material particulars and failed to adequately explain its findings. Emphasizing that medical expert opinions are advisory and not binding, the Court ruled that it must form an independent judgment based on logic and objectivity. To ensure a fair trial and uncover the truth in a cross-version case, the Court accepted the petition and ordered the petitioner's re-examination by the PSMB. The judgment reinforces that courts possess the discretion to order further expert evaluation when medical reports are inconsistent or lack sufficient reasoning, ensuring the administration of justice remains impartial.

  Questions settled

  • Is the opinion of a medical expert binding upon a court of law?
  • Can a court order a re-examination by the Provincial Standing Medical Board when a District Standing Medical Board's opinion is deficient in material particulars?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under the Constitution necessitate that public functionaries record reasons for their decisions?
  • Are vague and unsubstantiated allegations of mala fides sufficient to challenge the findings of a medical board?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad vs Province of Punjab, etc2022 LHC 4757 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-29Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad and others, Mst. Noor Bhari vs The State, etc., Murtaza, etc2022 LHC 2108, 2024 YLR 509 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-04
  murderbenefit of doubtocular accountchance witnessdelayed FIRpost-mortem delaymotiveacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants recorded by the trial court under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a private complaint. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony from chance witnesses, the implication of delayed FIR registration and post-mortem examination, and the evidentiary value of defective weapon recoveries and unverified forensic science reports in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that numerous grave contradictions, the absence of a reliable source of light for identification during a midnight occurrence, delayed reporting, and broken chains of custody for crime empties collectively created insurmountable doubts in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, granted the appellants the benefit of the doubt resulting in their acquittal, and dismissed the connected revision petition for sentence enhancement and leave to appeal against co-accused acquittals. The key principle laid down is that even a single reasonable doubt generated by material flaws in ocular and circumstantial evidence entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses can form the sole basis for conviction when their presence at the scene of occurrence is doubtful?
  • Does a significant delay in reporting the crime and conducting the post-mortem examination cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the FIR?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of weapon recoveries when the chain of custody and forensic science agency transmission reports are contradictory?
  • Whether lingering doubts regarding the identification of assailants during a dark night without a verified source of light entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad and others vs State and and othersPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 107 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-10
  criminal appealocular accountbenefit of doubtmurder convictionappreciation of evidencedelayed FIRprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their convictions and sentences under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt through the provided ocular account, medical evidence, and conspiracy claims. The Lahore High Court found that the prosecution's case suffered from significant flaws, including a nine-hour delay in reporting the incident, inconsistencies between the ocular testimony and the site plan, and the failure to explain the absence of other family members during the alleged attack. The court held that the ocular account was not confidence-inspiring, rendering the corroboratory medical evidence and recovery reports insufficient to sustain the conviction. Consequently, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the trial court's judgment, and acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of doubt. The key principle established is that when the primary ocular evidence is unreliable and contradictory, the prosecution fails to meet the burden of proof required for a criminal conviction, regardless of corroboratory evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in reporting an incident to the police cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's story?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on medical evidence and recoveries when the ocular account is found to be unreliable?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to account for the presence of other family members at the crime scene undermine the credibility of eye-witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Hussain vs Planning And Development Division Of Pakistan Civil2022 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 28 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service appealregular inquirymajor penaltymisconductnatural justiceback benefitsreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a Civil Driver, challenged his discharge from service through a departmental appeal and subsequently filed a service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal after previous litigation resulted in an order for a de novo inquiry. The core legal question was whether a regular departmental inquiry can be dispensed with when imposing a major penalty involving controversial facts. The Tribunal held that holding a regular departmental inquiry is a sine qua non and mandatory when imposing major penalties for misconduct involving disputed facts, and failing to do so violates principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the impugned discharge orders, accepted the appeal, and directed the reinstatement of the appellant with back benefits subject to specific conditions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a regular departmental inquiry can be dispensed with when imposing a major penalty for misconduct involving controversial facts?
  • Does the failure to conduct a regular inquiry prior to imposing a major penalty violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Whether NLC employees are subject to the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed vs The State and another2022 MLD 356 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-08-06
  post-arrest bailstatutory ground for bailheinous offencetrial delayprima facie casecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Maqbool Ahmed, who is facing trial for offences under sections 376 and 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner sought bail primarily on statutory grounds, arguing that his incarceration had exceeded two years, that the trial was delayed, and that he was not implicated by the victim in her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The prosecution opposed the application, highlighting the gravity of the offence, the specific role attributed to the accused, and the fact that nine prosecution witnesses had already been examined, with the trial nearing conclusion. The Islamabad High Court examined the record and determined that there was sufficient prima facie material connecting the petitioner to the alleged offence. Emphasizing the gravity of the charges and the progress of the trial, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed, with the Court directing the trial court to conclude the remaining proceedings expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere passage of time in incarceration automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail under the statutory grounds of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be denied in a case involving heinous offences where there is sufficient prima facie material connecting the accused to the crime?
  • Is a trial court required to conclude proceedings expeditiously when a bail petition is dismissed on the grounds of trial progress?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed Solangi vs Board of Revenue & others2022 SHC 508 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-03Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Khan vs The State etc2022 LHC 3911 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-30
  criminal appealacquittaljurisdictionDivision BenchSingle BenchHigh Court Rules and Ordersfixation of cases
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against an acquittal judgment. The core legal question addressed is the determination of the appropriate forum—a Single Bench or a Division Bench—for hearing an appeal against acquittal, particularly when connected appeals against conviction are pending. The Court held that, pursuant to the Lahore High Court Rules & Orders (Volume V), an appeal against acquittal under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be placed before a Division Bench. The Court clarified that while there is a risk of conflicting judicial outcomes when conviction and acquittal appeals are heard separately, the procedural rules mandate that such appeals against acquittal be filed and initially placed before a Division Bench. Consequently, the Court directed the office to fix the appeal before the appropriate Division Bench, affirming that the Division Bench retains the authority to issue further directions regarding the fixation of connected matters to ensure judicial consistency and prevent prejudice to the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal against acquittal under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 fall under the jurisdiction of a Single Bench or a Division Bench?
  • Can a Single Bench hear an appeal against conviction when a related appeal against acquittal is pending before a Division Bench?
  • What is the procedure for the fixation of an appeal against acquittal under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 according to the High Court Rules & Orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Khan vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1599 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-30
  appeal against acquittaljurisdiction of benchessingle benchdivision benchconnected appealshigh court rules and orderscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, assailing an acquittal judgment passed by an Additional Sessions Judge. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the appeal against acquittal was wrongly fixed before a Single Bench instead of a Division Bench, and requested that it be sent to the appropriate forum while adjourning connected appeals against conviction. The core legal question concerned the proper forum and distribution of judicial business between Single and Division Benches for hearing appeals against acquittal and connected appeals against conviction arising from the same judgment under the Lahore High Court Rules & Orders. The court held that appeals against acquittal under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 fall within the jurisdiction of a Division Bench, whereas appeals against conviction not involving a death sentence are heard by a Single Bench, and prior to the admission and issuance of notice in an appeal against acquittal, matters proceed in their respective forums. The court directed the office to fix the appeal before the appropriate Division Bench.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against acquittal under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is to be heard by a Single Bench or a Division Bench?
  • Should connected appeals against conviction and appeals against acquittal arising from the same judgment be heard by the same forum prior to the admission of the appeal against acquittal?
  • What is the effect of the Lahore High Court Rules & Orders on the distribution of judicial business between Single and Division Benches in criminal appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor etc vs The State etc2022 PHC 508, 2022 PCTLR 1149 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-03Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs The State, etc2022 LHC 6718 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-14
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtlast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessioncriminal appealmurder convictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a minor. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established guilt through circumstantial evidence, specifically last seen evidence, extra-judicial confession, and alleged recoveries, in the absence of direct ocular testimony. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the circumstantial evidence was fragmented and lacked the necessary continuity to form an unbroken chain connecting the accused to the crime. Furthermore, the Court found the evidence of last seen and the alleged extra-judicial confession unreliable due to the witnesses' relationship with the complainant and the lack of independent corroboration. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, every link must be established to exclude all hypotheses of innocence, and that the benefit of doubt is a fundamental right of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events is incomplete?
  • Is last seen evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does an extra-judicial confession require independent corroboration to form the basis of a conviction?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a fundamental right of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs The State and another2022 PHC 346 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-23Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs Muhammad Zafar (deceased) through L.Rs, etc2022 LHC 4006 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-23Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Zeenat Salim vs Pakistan Naval Farms, etc2022 [M] C L R 231 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-07Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad Sajjad vs Akhtar Hussain2022 CLC 856 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-21Read full judgment →
• Manzar Zahoor vs Lyari Development Authority and another2022 SCP 110, 2022 SCMR 1305, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1128, 2022 SCMR 1305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-16
  date of birth correctionsuperannuationcivil servantlocus poenitentiaeservice recordconstitutional petitionservice laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order dismissing a constitutional petition regarding the petitioner's retirement. The petitioner, a civil servant, sought to alter his date of birth from 1953 to 1955 at the verge of his superannuation. Although he initially obtained a departmental notification approving this change, it was subsequently rescinded by the Chief Secretary, leading to his retirement based on the original date. The core legal question was whether a civil servant can alter their date of birth near retirement and whether such an alteration, if granted, creates a vested right. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the alteration was unlawful and lacked proper justification. The Court affirmed that the date of birth recorded at the time of entry into service is final, and no alteration is permissible after two years or at the verge of retirement. Furthermore, the principle of locus poenitentiae does not apply to orders issued in violation of law, meaning the rescission of the unlawful notification was valid.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant seek alteration of their date of birth at the verge of retirement?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to an order issued in violation of law?
  • Is the date of birth recorded at the time of entry into government service final?
  • Can a civil servant use a civil suit to seek modification of their date of birth in service records?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzar Abbas vs Inspector General Of Police, Lahore and 7 others2022 PLJ Lahore 127 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-15Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Khan vs State2022 PHC 366 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-14Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Ahmed vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 57 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-26
  post-arrest bailnarcotics possessionborderline quantityprohibitory clausepolice witnessescriminal bail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Mansoor Ahmed, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 1030 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given that the quantity of narcotics recovered marginally exceeded the threshold for a lesser offense under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, placing the case in a 'borderline' category. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. It reasoned that the quantity recovered was only marginally above the limit for the lesser offense, and that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted that all witnesses were police officials, with no independent public witnesses cited despite prior information. The key principle laid down is that in cases involving borderline quantities of narcotics between Section 9(b) and 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, bail may be granted if the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is an offense involving a quantity of narcotics that marginally exceeds the threshold of Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 considered a borderline case for the purpose of granting bail?
  • Does the absence of independent public witnesses in a narcotics recovery case involving only police officials entitle an accused to bail?
  • Does an offense under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 necessarily fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansab Ali vs The State etc2022 LHC 3395, 2024 PCRLJ 671, 2024 PCRLJ 1135, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1411 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-25
  Anti-Terrorism Court jurisdictionabduction for ransomSection 365-A PPCtransfer of trialcriminal revisionrapeextortion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision challenged an order by the Anti-Terrorism Court, which refused to transfer a trial involving charges under Sections 365-A, 392, 376(ii), and 376(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, to an ordinary court. The core legal question was whether abduction for the purpose of rape, absent any demand for ransom or property, constitutes "kidnapping or abduction for extorting property" under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thus falling under the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court. The Court held that Section 365-A requires a specific element of extortion—either property, valuable security, or a demand for release—which was absent in this case. The Court established that forcing a woman into illicit intercourse, while a serious offence under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, does not constitute abduction for ransom. Consequently, the trial was ordered to be transferred to the ordinary court, as the Anti-Terrorism Court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of abduction for the purpose of rape constitute 'kidnapping or abduction for extorting property' under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the actual payment of ransom a necessary ingredient to constitute the offence of kidnapping for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the definition of 'kidnapping for ransom' under Section 2(n) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 include abduction for the purpose of sexual assault without a demand for property or money?
  Read full judgment →
• Mannan and others vs The State2022 YLR 2359 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-17
  murderattempted murderinjured eye-witnessidentification in darknessnon-recovery of weaponrelated witnessdeath sentence confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  The Sindh High Court heard appeals against the convictions and sentences passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge (Model Criminal Trial Court) Karachi South in a case involving murder, attempted murder, and hurt under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, armed with pistols and knives, assaulted the complainant and his son, and subsequently stabbed and killed the complainant's other son when he arrived to rescue them. The appellants contended that they were falsely implicated, that poor light prevented correct identification, and that no weapons were recovered. The High Court, upon reassessing the evidence, found that the eye-witnesses (including injured witnesses and independent bystanders) were natural, reliable, and had sufficient opportunity to identify the appellants due to close proximity, notwithstanding the poor light. The Court held that the absence of weapon recovery is not fatal when reliable eye-witness testimony exists, and that minor contradictions do not dent the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, maintained the convictions, and confirmed the death sentence of the primary accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether darkness or poor light at the crime scene automatically invalidates the identification of the accused by eye-witnesses?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of related eye-witnesses in the absence of proven enmity?
  • Does the non-recovery of the weapon of offence fatal to the prosecution's case when reliable eye-witness testimony is available?
  • Whether minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Is it a universal rule that a death sentence cannot be awarded if no motive for the murder is proved?
  Read full judgment →
• Manjhi & Others vs The State2022 SHC 256 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-30
  criminal appealprocedural irregularityrecording of evidenceamendment of chargeprejudice to accusedtrial de novoinjured witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellants by the Sessions Judge, Tharparkar at Mithi, for murder and causing injuries. The core legal question concerns the procedural validity of the trial court's decision to copy and paste previously recorded evidence after amending the charge to include newly joined accused persons, rather than recording the evidence afresh in the presence of all accused. The High Court held that this procedure violated the mandatory requirement under Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which necessitates that evidence be taken in the presence of the accused. Furthermore, the court noted the failure to examine a key injured witness without establishing incapacity through medical evidence, causing prejudice to both the defense and the prosecution. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment, remanded the case for a fresh trial, and directed the trial court to record evidence on the amended charge de novo, ensuring compliance with legal procedures within a specified timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court copy and paste evidence recorded before the amendment of a charge to use against newly joined accused persons?
  • Does the failure to record evidence in the presence of the accused violate the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it mandatory to medically ascertain the incapacity of an injured witness before dispensing with their examination at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mamoon Wazir and others vs Abwa Knowledge Village (Pvt) Limited2022 SCMR 72 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-27
  MDCATmedical college admissionstatutory interpretationprivate medical collegePakistan Medical Commission Actadmission criteriasubordinate legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions filed by students challenging the cancellation of their admissions to a private medical college for failing to pass the Medical and Dental Colleges Admissions Test (MDCAT). The core legal question was whether the statutory requirement of passing the MDCAT, mandated by the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020, applies to students seeking admission to private medical colleges, regardless of the prospectus criteria of the individual institution or specific admission regulations. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the MDCAT is a mandatory statutory requirement for all medical and dental undergraduate programs in Pakistan, applicable to both public and private institutions. The court affirmed that while private colleges may establish additional admission criteria, such criteria are supplementary and cannot override or dispense with the primary statutory mandate. Furthermore, the court established that subordinate regulations cannot dilute or supersede the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the failure to pass the MDCAT rendered the students ineligible for admission, and the cancellation of their enrollment was upheld as legally valid.

  Questions settled

  • Is passing the Medical and Dental Colleges Admissions Test (MDCAT) a mandatory requirement for admission to private medical colleges in Pakistan?
  • Can subordinate regulations dispense with or dilute a mandatory requirement prescribed by a primary statute?
  • Does the prospectus of a private medical college override the statutory requirement to pass the MDCAT for undergraduate medical admissions?
  Read full judgment →
• Mall Development (Pvt) Ltd vs Waleed Khanzada 86 others2022 SCP 284, 2022 SCMR 2080, 2023 PLJ SC 177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-12
  amenity plotland use conversionpublic parkconstitutional petitionright to lifecommercial plottransparency in land allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that invalidated the merger of an amenity plot with a commercial plot by the appellants. The core legal question was whether the 3600 square yard "Adjacent Plot," originally designated as a public park/amenity, could be lawfully amalgamated with an 8000 square yard commercial plot and utilized for commercial purposes. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Adjacent Plot was indeed an amenity plot and could not be converted for commercial use. The Court emphasized that land use changes must follow strict legal procedures and that public amenities cannot be arbitrarily disposed of or converted, as this infringes upon the rights of the general public. The Court affirmed that payment of consideration does not validate an illegal transaction or bypass mandatory regulatory requirements. Furthermore, the Court held that the right to life, protected under the Constitution, encompasses the right of citizens to enjoy public spaces such as parks, and such rights cannot be sacrificed for commercial interests. The judgment reinforces the principle that amenity plots must remain dedicated to their original public purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Can an amenity plot be converted for commercial use?
  • Does the payment of consideration validate an otherwise illegal land transaction?
  • Does the right to life under the Constitution include the right of citizens to enjoy public spaces such as parks?
  • Must land use changes for plots follow the specific procedures prescribed by building by-laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Zulfiqar Ahmed vs The State And 02 Others2022 IHC 280, 2024 YLR 185 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-10-27Read full judgment →
• Malik Zarin Khan vs Adnan Ali Malik, etc2022 LHC 8005 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-30Read full judgment →
• Malik Zaffar S/o Ghulam Sarwar vs Rashid Hussain Shah, S/o Shah Pir Shah2022 SC AJK 34 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-09-07Read full judgment →
• Malik Zaffar son of Ghulam Sarwar, r/o Kotla, Phagwari, Tehsil and District2022 SC AJK 42 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Malik Zafar Iqbal and 5 others vs The State and another2022 P Cr. L J 421 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-12
  anti-terrorismproscribed organizationretrospective punishmentcriminal appealfair trialnullum crimen nulla poena sine legeacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellants by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, specifically relating to their alleged involvement with the proscribed Al-Anfaal Trust and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. The core legal questions were whether the appellants could be held criminally liable for activities (purchasing ambulances) conducted prior to the proscription of the Trust, and whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the offences, noting that the ambulances were purchased before the Trust was banned, and the prosecution's sole witness provided vague, uncorroborated testimony. The Court emphasized the principle of nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege, holding that retrospective punishment for acts that were not criminal at the time of commission is prohibited under Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, ruling that a retrial was unjustified as the prosecution had no viable case.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted for activities related to an organization that was not proscribed at the time the activities were performed?
  • Does the failure to supply copies of witness statements under Section 265-C, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, automatically vitiate a trial?
  • Is a retrial justified when the prosecution fails to produce sufficient evidence to support the charges?
  • Does Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 prohibit the retrospective application of criminal laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Tariq Mahmood, etc vs Province of Punjab, etc2022 SCP 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  land acquisitionmarket valuefair compensationcommercial potentiallocal commissioncompulsory acquisitioneminent domain
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment regarding compensation for acquired land, contending that the awarded amount was disproportionate to the market value. The core legal question concerned the proper classification of the land—whether it was agricultural or commercial—and the resulting valuation. The Supreme Court held that compensation must be determined based on the land's market value, which includes its potential for more beneficial future use, not merely its current application at the time of acquisition. The Court emphasized that revenue records are not conclusive and that courts possess a constitutional duty to ensure fair compensation, obliging them to exercise suo motu powers under the Code of Civil Procedure to appoint commissions for local investigation to ascertain the true nature and value of the land. Consequently, the Court enhanced the compensation rate to align with the commercial potential of the land, while noting that the final award cannot exceed the amount originally claimed by the landowner. This judgment reinforces the principle that landowners cannot be penalized for not utilizing land in a specific way if its location dictates higher commercial potential.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court determine compensation based on the potential future use of land rather than its current use at the time of acquisition?
  • Does a court have the power to appoint a commission to investigate the nature and market value of acquired land?
  • Is the compensation awarded to a landowner limited by the amount originally claimed in their application?
  • Are revenue record entries regarding the nature of land conclusive for the purpose of determining compensation?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Tariq Ayub and another vs Raja Arshad Mehmood and another2022 MLD 2037 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-19
  bail cancellationanti-terrorismstatutory delayrevisional jurisdictionspecial law versus general lawflight riskaggrieved person
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Anti-Terrorism Court in a terrorism case. The core legal questions revolved around whether bail under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is governed by general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly statutory delay grounds, and whether the High Court possesses revisional and constitutional jurisdiction to review bail orders passed by Special Courts. The Islamabad High Court held that the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 provides a complete and restrictive scheme for bail that excludes the general provisions of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that statutory delay grounds do not apply to offenses punishable with death or imprisonment for life under anti-terrorism laws. The Court further held that it has supervisory and revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the Constitution to examine the legality and propriety of bail orders issued by subordinate anti-terrorism courts, ultimately setting aside the impugned bail order as perverse.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 apply to the grant of bail in cases triable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is the statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial available under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to an accused charged with an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life?
  • Whether the High Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in relation to a bail granting order passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Does the mother of a deceased victim qualify as an aggrieved person to challenge a bail order passed in favor of the accused under Article 199 of the Constitution or through criminal revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Shah Jahan vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhuwa through Provincial Police Officer_IGP, Peshawar and others2022 PLJ Peshawar 30 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  service matterlacheswrit jurisdictiondepartmental inquirycriminal acquittalcivil servantArticle 212disciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two writ petitions filed by police constables challenging their dismissal from service. The petitioners were dismissed following departmental inquiries initiated due to prolonged unauthorized absence and involvement in criminal cases, despite their subsequent acquittal in those criminal proceedings. The core legal questions were whether criminal acquittal mandates reinstatement and whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate service-related disputes. The Court held that disciplinary proceedings are distinct from criminal trials; thus, acquittal in the latter does not automatically invalidate departmental actions. Furthermore, the Court ruled that under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, it lacks jurisdiction to entertain matters concerning the terms and conditions of civil servants, which fall exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal. Additionally, the Court observed that the petitions were barred by the doctrine of laches due to significant, unexplained delays in filing. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, with the petitioners granted liberty to approach the appropriate Service Tribunal for redressal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal in criminal proceedings automatically absolve a civil servant of departmental liability?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to adjudicate matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants?
  • Can a writ petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches if there is an unexplained delay in filing?
  • Are departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings inter-dependent?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Sarfraz vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 762 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-10
  common intentionvicarious liabilitycriminal appealmurderreasonable doubtocular evidencemedical evidenceSection 34 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the application of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for a crime committed by a co-accused. The Islamabad High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The Court found the prosecution's evidence inconsistent, noting contradictions between ocular and medical accounts, the failure to prove the motive, and the unreliability of the recovered weapon. Crucially, the Court emphasized that common intention under Section 34 requires proof of a pre-arranged plan or concert, which cannot be inferred unless it is a necessary deduction from the circumstances. Mere presence or joint action without shared intent is insufficient for vicarious liability. As the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's participation or shared intent beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, allowing the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime with a co-accused who commits the offence establish vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a state of mind that requires proof of a pre-arranged plan or can it be inferred from surrounding circumstances?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the ocular evidence is inconsistent with the medical evidence and the investigation is fundamentally flawed?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Riaz Ullah vs Mst. Bilawar Jan and Others2022 MLD 2011 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-25Read full judgment →
• Malik Naeem Iqbal, advocate vs M/s M.M Aqil Awan, advocate2022 SHC 106 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-15
  Constitutional petitionRepatriationCivil servant statusService Tribunal jurisdictionProvincial Assembly employeesArticle 199 jurisdictionService terms and conditions
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Assistant Secretary in the Sindh Provincial Assembly, challenged a notification repatriating him to his parent department, the Intelligence Bureau. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner, as an employee of the Provincial Assembly, fell within the definition of a 'civil servant' subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether the repatriation order was lawful. The Court held that while employees of Provincial Assemblies are generally considered civil servants, the instant matter concerned the legality of a repatriation order based on the erroneous premise that the petitioner was a deputationist or absorbed employee, despite his initial appointment through a competitive process. Consequently, the Court determined that the matter did not exclusively fall within the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction and was maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court set aside the impugned notification, ruling that the petitioner was not a deputationist and was entitled to continue his duties in the Assembly.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees of the Provincial Assembly considered civil servants for the purpose of Service Tribunal jurisdiction?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to challenge a repatriation order of a Provincial Assembly employee?
  • Can a repatriation order be sustained if the employee was appointed through a competitive process rather than absorption or deputation?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Naeem Akhtar vs The Station House Officer, etc2022 IHC 80 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-11Read full judgment →
• Malik Musawar Khan vs Mst. Nadia Yaseen Malik and others2022 IHC 9 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-05Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Tahir vs The State and another2022 SCP 268, 2022 SCMR 2040 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-22
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausecheque dishonourfraudagreement to selloverseas Pakistanileave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, assailing an order of the Lahore High Court which declined post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 406, and 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner deceitfully entered into an agreement to sell agricultural land he did not own, obtained large sums of money, and acquired and sold valuable residential plots belonging to the complainant, an overseas Pakistani. Furthermore, a cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly given that some offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause is not an absolute rule for granting bail and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court found sufficient oral and documentary evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime and dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-applicability of an offence to the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 creates an absolute right to bail?
  • Does a case involving financial fraud and deprivation of an overseas Pakistani's property warrant the denial of post-arrest bail despite offences falling outside the prohibitory clause?
  • Whether sufficient material on record to establish a prima facie case disentitles an accused from claiming the benefit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Riaz vs Muhammad Hanif and others2022 SCMR 1572 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-26
  civil appealspecific performancebreach of contractdamagesconcurrent findingsburden of proofconstruction contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged a High Court judgment that set aside concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, which had decreed a suit for recovery of construction charges, material costs, and damages. The appellant, a contractor, had sued for outstanding payments and damages following the termination of a construction agreement. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court correctly dismissed the entire suit. The Court held that while the appellant failed to provide evidence or secure specific issues for claims regarding damages and raw material costs, the claim for the principal outstanding construction charges was well-established by evidence and correctly decreed by the lower courts. The High Court erred by dismissing the entire suit instead of modifying the decree to exclude the unproven claims. The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that where a portion of a claim is substantiated by evidence, it should not be dismissed due to the failure of other unsubstantiated claims. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to the extent of the proven construction charges.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant damages for breach of contract under Section 73 of the Contract Act 1872 without specific issues being framed or evidence being led to substantiate such damages?
  • Is a High Court justified in dismissing an entire suit in second appeal when only a portion of the claim is unsupported by evidence, while the remaining portion is well-established by concurrent findings?
  • What is the obligation of a trial court regarding the settlement of issues under Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Nawaz vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others2022 PHC 84 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-22Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Arif vs Zafar Iqbal etc2022 SCP 54, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 366, 2022 PSC 645, 2022 PLJ SC 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-15
  landlord and tenanteviction petitionjurisdictionclerical errorRent Tribunalpleadingsestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from an eviction application filed by the petitioner/landlord against the respondent/tenant. Although the application was addressed to the Civil Court and initially registered as a civil suit, its contents clearly stated a landlord-tenant relationship and sought eviction under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. The Presiding Officer, who held dual capacity as both Civil Judge and Special Judge (Rent), subsequently rectified the clerical error and re-registered the matter as an eviction petition. The Special Judge (Rent) allowed the eviction, and the Appellate Court dismissed the tenant's appeal. However, the Lahore High Court accepted the tenant's constitutional petition and dismissed the eviction application on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that a clerical error in addressing the court does not non-suit a party when the contents of the application satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 19 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. The Court ruled that the substance of the pleadings, rather than their form or title, determines jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a clerical error in addressing an eviction application to a Civil Court instead of the Rent Tribunal deprives the Special Judge (Rent) of jurisdiction if the officer holds dual capacity?
  • Can a party challenge the jurisdiction of a Rent Tribunal after failing to appeal an interlocutory order that explicitly rectified the registration of the suit as an eviction petition?
  • Should the substance and contents of an application prevail over its form or title in determining the nature of the legal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Mamdu vs Allah Nawaz and others2022 PHC 414 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-13Read full judgment →
• Malik Lighting vs United Bank Limited2022 PCTLR 431 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-03Read full judgment →
• Malik Khursheed vs Mst. Tahseen Bibi2022 PHC 554 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-17Read full judgment →
• Malik Khan, etc. vs Member (Judicial-VIII), Board of Revenue, Punjab, etc.2022 LHC 2033 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-08Read full judgment →
• Malik Khan, etc vs Member (Judicial-VII), Board of Revenue, Punjab, etc2022 PLJ Lahore 777 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-08Read full judgment →
• Malik Fahim Ullah Khan vs The District Returning Officer and another2022 LHC 6149, 2024 CLC 85, 2022 LHC 6159, 2022 CLC 1842 · Lahore High Court · 2022-08-18Read full judgment →
• Malik Deen vs Government of Pakistan, etc2022 IHC 64 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-15Read full judgment →
• Malik Dad, Superintendent, etc vs Ministry of Information, Broadcasting &2022 PLJ Islamabad 109 · Islamabad High Court
  Secretariat Allowanceattached departmentequal treatmentArticle 25civil servantsreasonable classificationwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by civil servants employed in the Central Board of Film Censors (CBFC), an attached department under the administrative control of the Ministry of Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage, seeking a direction to grant them a 20% Secretariat Allowance and arrears on the ground of non-discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal questions were whether employees of an attached department performing non-secretarial functions are entitled to the Secretariat Allowance admissible to the Federal Secretariat, and whether the claim remained maintainable following the promulgation of the Secretariat Allowance (Rescission of Orders, etc.) Ordinance 2000. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Article 25 guarantees equal treatment only to those who are similarly placed in designation and nature of duties. The Court held that attached departments do not perform secretarial functions, and after the enactment of the Ordinance 2000, which rescinded the allowance with retrospective effect, the claim lacked legal basis and foundation.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 25 of the Constitution require identical treatment of employees in attached departments and Federal Secretariat Divisions regarding Secretariat Allowance?
  • Can civil servants working in attached departments claim Secretariat Allowance following the enactment of the Secretariat Allowance (Rescission of Orders, etc.) Ordinance 2000?
  • Does reasonable classification under Article 25 of the Constitution permit differentiation in allowances based on distinct duties and job functions?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Bashir Ahmad vs Circle Registrar, ICT Cooperative Societies2022 IHC 112 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Aftab Sultan vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C.1202 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-18
  environmental magistratejurisdictioncriminal petitionenvironmental offencesPakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, which had set aside an earlier order of a Special Judicial Magistrate, Depalpur. The core legal question was whether a Special Judicial Magistrate who is not a Senior Civil Judge has the jurisdiction to try environmental offences under the relevant legal framework and High Court notification. The Lahore High Court held that pursuant to Section 24 of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997 and the empowering High Court notification, only Senior Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates designated as Environmental Magistrates are competent to try such offences, rendering orders passed by other magistrates without jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Special Judicial Magistrate who is not a Senior Civil Judge has jurisdiction to try offences under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997?
  • Are contraventions punishable under Section 17 of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997 exclusively triable by Senior Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates especially empowered by the High Court?
  • Can an Environmental Magistrate take cognizance of an offence without a written complaint by the authorized agency or an aggrieved person?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Afreen and 3 others vs Ahlian-E-Handarap through Representatives2022 YLR 518 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-09-02Read full judgment →
• Malik Abdul Razzaq and others vs Khurram Khan Panni and others2022 PCTLR 1195 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-25Read full judgment →
• Malik Aamir Ali Khan vs Malik Humayun Irfan etc2022 LHC 6839 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
• Malak Muhammad Naeem vs SHO PS Banr and others2022 PHC 506 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-07Read full judgment →
• Major Rehan Zia vs The State and another2022 SCP 32, 2022 SCMR 1115, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 166, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-03
  pre-arrest bailhouse trespasstheftdelay in FIRmala fides
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking pre-arrest bail against an order of the Lahore High Court in a case registered under Sections 448 and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of house trespass and theft. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the inordinate delay in reporting the matter, previous inquiries finding the allegations baseless, lack of specific details regarding stolen articles, and the petitioner's status as an army officer with no risk of absconsion. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and set aside the impugned order, thereby granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The Court laid down that criminal prosecution initiated on bald allegations without substantiating material, coupled with inordinate unexplained delay and previous exoneration through police inquiry, warrants the grant of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when an FIR is lodged with an inordinate delay and previous police inquiries have found the accusations baseless?
  • Does the concept of an aggrieved person under criminal law extend to a person claiming status via a power-of-attorney executed by a deceased complainant in non-bodily harm cases?
  • Whether the lack of specific details regarding allegedly stolen articles and bald allegations warrant the grant of bail to an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Major (R) Muhammad Iftikhar Khan vs State and otherPLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-02
  statutory bailpost-arrest baildelay in trialinterlocutory applicationscriminal proceduremurderous assault
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed under Order XXXIII, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, seeking to entertain a criminal petition for post-arrest bail on statutory grounds. The applicant, charged with attempted murder and related offences, argued that the trial had not concluded within the timeframe previously directed by the Supreme Court, thereby entitling him to bail. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to statutory bail despite the trial delay, given that the delay was largely attributable to the applicant's own numerous interlocutory applications. The Supreme Court held that statutory bail is not an absolute right, particularly when the delay in trial is occasioned by the accused's own conduct in filing multiple applications. Finding that the delay was attributable to the applicant and that the trial was nearing completion with only three witnesses remaining, the Court dismissed the application. The key principle laid down is that an accused cannot claim statutory bail as a matter of right when the delay in the conclusion of the trial is primarily caused by the accused's own procedural filings.

  Questions settled

  • Is statutory bail a matter of right for an accused when the trial is delayed?
  • Can an accused claim entitlement to bail on statutory grounds if the delay in trial is attributable to their own filing of numerous applications?
  • Does the filing of multiple interlocutory applications by an accused preclude the grant of statutory bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Majid Ali vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 981 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-08
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauserobberyidentification paradetentative assessmentreasonable groundspre-trial detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 392/411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that because the minimum sentence for the offence is three years, it falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, entitling him to bail as a matter of right. The core legal question was whether the 'prohibitory clause' of section 497, which restricts bail for offences punishable with up to ten years, should be interpreted based on the minimum or maximum prescribed sentence. The Court held that the term 'punishable' in section 497 refers to the maximum sentence prescribed for an offence. Consequently, offences with a maximum punishment of ten years fall within the prohibitory clause, and bail is not a matter of right. The key principle laid down is that the prohibitory clause of section 497 is triggered by the maximum potential sentence, not the minimum, and the court must conduct a tentative assessment of whether reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused is guilty.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply based on the minimum or maximum sentence prescribed for an offence?
  • What is the legal standard for 'reasonable grounds' to believe an accused is guilty for the purpose of denying bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the presence of other FIRs against an accused a valid ground for the denial of bail?
  • Does the failure to mention a SIM card number in an FIR invalidate the recovery of a mobile phone where the IMEI number is recorded?
  Read full judgment →
• Majeed Masih vs The State2022 SCMR 1675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-02-20
  murderdeath sentencelife imprisonmentmitigating circumstancemotivechance witnessocular evidencegrave and sudden provocation
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence for the murder of a pregnant woman, which had been maintained by the High Court. The prosecution's case was supported by three eye-witnesses, including a chance witness whose testimony was deemed natural and consistent, and medical evidence that aligned with the ocular account. The appellant raised a defense plea of grave and sudden provocation under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, alleging illicit relations, but failed to prove it or testify under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the ocular and medical evidence established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the motive for the murder remained shrouded in mystery. Applying settled jurisprudence, the Court ruled that the prosecution's failure to prove the alleged motive or the absence of a clear motive is a mitigating factor that warrants withholding the extreme penalty of death. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, and the death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be discarded solely due to their status as a chance witness if their evidence is otherwise natural, consistent, and confidence-inspiring?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the motive alleged for a murder constitute a mitigating circumstance sufficient to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie when an accused sets up a special defense plea of grave and sudden provocation under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Majeed Ahmad vs Additional Sessions Judge, etc2022 LHC 2157 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-14
  kidnapping from lawful guardianshipnatural guardianhizanatconstructive custodycriminal revisioncustody of minorfamily dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a constitutional petition challenging an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, which was subsequently converted into a criminal revision petition by the High Court. The core legal question was whether a father, as the natural and legal guardian of his minor child, can be prosecuted for kidnapping under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for taking the child from the mother's custody. The Court held that the impugned order directing the registration of a criminal case against the father was legally unjustified. The ratio of the decision is that a father, being the natural and legal guardian under Muslim Law, cannot be charged with kidnapping his own child, as he retains constructive custody even when the child is in the mother's care (hizanat). The Court affirmed that disputes regarding the custody of minors between parents are family matters to be resolved by Guardian Courts, not through criminal proceedings. Consequently, the High Court set aside the direction to the police to register a criminal case against the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Can a father be prosecuted for kidnapping his own minor child under Section 361 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Does the High Court have the inherent power to convert a constitutional petition into a criminal revision petition?
  • Is a police officer authorized to register a criminal case for kidnapping in a dispute involving the custody of a minor between parents?
  • Does the father retain constructive custody of a minor child while the child is in the mother's hizanat?
  Read full judgment →
• Maj. (Retd) Bashir Ahmad vs Province of Punjab, etc2022 LHC 3895, 2022 CLC 1451 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-25Read full judgment →
• Maj. (R) Muhammad Siddique (deceased) through L.Rs. vs Muhammad2022 YLR 1583 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-24Read full judgment →
• Mahmooda Bibi vs Muhammad Khurshid Alem & others2022 LHC 7002, 2025 YLR 164 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Textile Mills Limited vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. through Managing Director & 05 others2022 LHC 3859 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mahmood Textile Mills Limited Through Director Technical and 13 others vs Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority, (Ogra) Through Registrar and 3 others2022 YLR 2250 · Lahore High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmad vs Amjad Hussain and 5 others2022 PLJ Tr.C. (Labour) 1 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 2021-09-28
  revision petitioncontempt petitionseniority listpromotionexecution of decreelabour court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition under Section 47(5) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 was filed to challenge the judgment of the Punjab Labour Court No. 09, Multan, which had directed the employer to count the respondent's eligibility for promotion as Foreman based on his experience. The matter was previously remanded by the Lahore High Court to determine whether a Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain a contempt petition and whether it can pass a contrary judgment in such proceedings. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal held that while a Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a contempt petition under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, it possesses the power under Section 33(8) of the Act to implement its decisions. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that the Labour Court's subsequent order was not a new or contrary judgment, but a valid execution order under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, aimed at correcting a non-compliant seniority list. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain a contempt petition under any provision of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • Whether the Labour Court possesses the power to implement its own decisions and punish non-compliance under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • Whether a Labour Court, in the exercise of its execution powers, can pass directions to correct a non-compliant seniority list without it being deemed a new or contrary judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mah Noor Azhar, etc vs Lieutenant Colonel Muhammad Sohail Khan, etc2022 LHC 6063 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-24Read full judgment →
• Mah Jabeen Ashfaq vs Noor Mahi and others2022 SCP 60, 2022 SCMR 1093, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 214, PLJ 2022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-21
  specific performancelimitationsubsequent purchaserlocus standicomplete justiceagreement to sell
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an Islamabad High Court order that upheld the dismissal of a suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as a subsequent purchaser, could enforce a sale agreement where the original plaintiff failed to prove the agreement's execution, the payment of consideration, and where the suit was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly dismissed the suit in its entirety. The Court found that because the original plaintiff failed to prove the sale agreement and the suit was filed nine years after the alleged agreement, it was hopelessly time-barred. Furthermore, the Court clarified that since the original plaintiff’s claim failed, the petitioner, whose claim was derivative, had no locus standi. The Court exercised its powers under Article 187 of the Constitution to do complete justice, noting that findings against the original plaintiff regarding the failure to prove the agreement had attained finality, thereby precluding any claim for damages or refund of consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a subsequent purchaser maintain a suit for specific performance if the original plaintiff's claim fails for lack of proof and limitation?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the power under Article 187 of the Constitution to clarify a judgment to ensure complete justice between parties?
  • Is a suit for specific performance maintainable when filed nine years after the alleged agreement to sell?
  • Does a finding by the High Court that a suit is dismissed in its entirety, including the denial of a penalty payment, attain finality if not challenged by the aggrieved party?
  Read full judgment →
• Madni Ahmed Ali Arfat Siddiqui vs Sui Southern Gas Company Limited and another2022 SHC 436, 2023 PLJ Karachi 19, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 431 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-03
  Master and Servant doctrineService regulationsPublic sector recruitmentVested right to promotionJudicial review of policyMaintainability of suitSection 24-A General Clauses Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, an employee of Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (SSGCL), challenged a public recruitment notice for senior management positions, arguing that the defendant was obligated to prioritize internal promotion over external hiring according to its service rules and succession planning. The core legal questions were whether the suit was maintainable given the "Master and Servant" employment relationship and whether the recruitment process violated the defendant's internal service regulations. The court held that the suit was maintainable because public sector entities, even when governed by non-statutory rules, must act fairly, justly, and reasonably under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. However, on the merits, the court dismissed the suit. It ruled that the defendant possessed the executive discretion to hire externally for specialized senior management roles to ensure operational efficiency. The court established that an employee holds no vested right to promotion for specialized positions, and judicial interference in such policy decisions is unwarranted absent clear evidence that the recruitment process violated established service regulations or policies.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit filed by an employee of a public sector entity maintainable despite the 'Master and Servant' doctrine?
  • Does an employee have a vested right to promotion for senior management positions in a public sector organization?
  • Can a court interfere with the executive discretion of a public sector entity to recruit externally for specialized positions?
  • Does the duty to act fairly under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 apply to non-statutory service regulations of a public sector entity?
  Read full judgment →
• Madina Breeding (Pvt.) Limited vs Sindh Environmental Protection Agency2022 CLD 1051 · Sindh Environmental Protection Tribunal · 2021-07-06Read full judgment →
• M.Q.M. (Pakistan) and others vs Pakistan through Secretary Cabinet2022 PLD Supreme Court 439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-01
  local governmentdevolution of powersArticle 140A of Constitutionultra viresfundamental rightsexcessive delegationSindh Local Government Act, 2013Objectives Resolutionconstitutional petitionjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, challenged the constitutionality of Sections 74 and 75(1) of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, and other provincial statutes. The petitioners alleged these provisions failed to devolve political, administrative, and financial responsibility and authority to local governments as mandated by Article 140A, thereby infringing fundamental rights. The core legal question was whether these provisions constituted excessive delegation of legislative power to the executive and violated the constitutional scheme for local governance. The Supreme Court declared Sections 74 and 75(1) of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, ultra vires the Objectives Resolution and Articles 9, 14, 25, and 140A of the Constitution, and struck them down. The Court further held that laws like the KDA Order No.5 of 1957 and the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979, which override elected local government actions, are against the constitutional scheme. It directed the provincial government to amend these laws to conform with Article 140A and ensure local governments receive their due share of funds. The judgment affirmed that Article 140A mandates a robust local government system, with primacy given to elected local governments over provincial agencies in conflicting functions, and that the legislature cannot delegate un-canalised power.

  Read full judgment →
• M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, Ex-Chief Justice High Court of Azad Jammu an_adca361f2022 SC AJ&K 9 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• M. Ali Farhan Hameed vs The State and another2022 LHC 4657, 2024 MLD 502 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-17
  pre-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustmala fidefamily disputeentrustmentcontractual dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a request for pre-arrest bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arising from an FIR registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged criminal breach of trust. The core legal question was whether the financial transactions between the parties constituted criminal entrustment or a civil dispute, and whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Court held that the allegations essentially stemmed from a family dispute and that the financial transactions, characterized by the petitioner as salary payments, lacked the essential ingredients of entrustment required for an offence under Section 406. Emphasizing that a mere breach of contract or promise does not constitute criminal breach of trust, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principles laid down are that there is a clear legal distinction between investment or payment and entrustment of property, and that courts should scrutinize whether criminal proceedings are being used to settle personal or family scores, particularly when mala fide intent can be inferred from the circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere breach of promise or contract constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the legal distinction between an investment or payment of money and the entrustment of property?
  • Can mala fide intent be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a case where direct evidence is unavailable?
  • Is it permissible for a court to touch upon the merits of a case while deciding a petition for pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Abbas Raza vs IESCO2022 PLC 179 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2020-04-13
  unfair labour practiceindustrial relationssuspensionshow-cause noticetrade union activitiesmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed under Section 31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, by the petitioner challenging his suspension orders, show-cause notices, and attachment for attendance, alleging them to be illegal and acts of unfair labour practice due to his trade union activities. The core legal question is whether the impugned disciplinary actions and suspension of the petitioner constituted an unfair labour practice by the employer and whether the petition was maintainable. The National Industrial Relations Commission held that the petitioner failed to provide any proof or specific instances of unfair labour practice or link the disciplinary proceedings to his trade union activities. Furthermore, it was noted that the charge sheet and show-cause notice had already been withdrawn by the employer, and initiating disciplinary inquiries for misconduct falls within the legitimate prerogative of the employer. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the suspension of an employee and issuance of show-cause notices constitute an unfair labour practice without specific proof of union-related victimization?
  • Can the National Industrial Relations Commission interfere with the employer's prerogative to conduct an inquiry against an employee for misconduct?
  • Does a petition under Section 31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, remain maintainable when the impugned show-cause notice and charge sheet have been withdrawn?
  Read full judgment →
• Lutf-ur-Rehman & another vs The State etc2022 PHC 138 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-09Read full judgment →
• Luqman vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 593 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-01
  post-arrest bailrapeabductionfurther inquirymedical corroborationdelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner Luqman sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Tarkhani, Faisalabad, concerning allegations of rape and abduction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court observed that there was an unexplained delay of ten hours in reporting the incident, discrepancies between the crime report and the victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, indications of consent, a lack of corroboration from the medico-legal and forensic reports showing an intact hymen, and no recoveries from the petitioner. The court held that these factors rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing that material contradictions, lack of medical corroboration, and delay in reporting warrant post-arrest bail under the statutory further inquiry provision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in reporting the crime and contradictions in the victim's statements justify grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Does an intact hymen and lack of medical corroboration make a rape case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether continuous indefinite detention of an accused without the prospect of a near-future trial warrants post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Lucky Cement Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2022 PCTLR 1380 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-03Read full judgment →
• Lucky Cement Limited through Authorized Representative vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Economic Affairs, Revenue Division, Islamabad and 3 others2022 PTD 729, PTCL 2022 CL. 776 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-26Read full judgment →
• Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Mahmud Ahmad Akhtar and another vs Messrs Allied2022 CLD 718, 2022 PCTLR 970 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-25
  rectification of registertransmission of sharescompany jurisdictionfraudulent share transfersummary procedureregister of membersForm-A annual returnSECP
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arose from a company petition filed by legal heirs under Section 152 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, seeking rectification of the register of members of a private limited company. The petitioners alleged that 1400 shares belonging to their deceased son were fraudulently and unlawfully transferred to another respondent without proper transfer instruments. The core legal questions pertained to whether the High Court in its original company jurisdiction could determine title and rectify the register, or whether the dispute belonged before a Civil Court, and whether the alleged share transfer was valid without compliance with Section 76 of the Ordinance. The High Court held that it possesses exclusive original summary jurisdiction under Section 152 to resolve rectification matters and investigate disputed facts. Finding that no stamped transfer deed or instrument was ever executed by the deceased under Section 76, the Court ruled the transfer void, allowed the petition, ordered the register rectified, and directed the SECP to restore the deceased's shareholding for transmission to his legal heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court exercising company jurisdiction under Section 152 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 has exclusive jurisdiction to decide questions of title for rectification of the register of members rather than the Civil Court?
  • Does the summary nature of proceedings under Section 9 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 bar the Company Court from inquiring into factual controversies and recording evidence?
  • Can a transfer of company shares be legally valid in the absence of a duly stamped and executed transfer deed as mandated by Section 76 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • What prerequisites must an aggrieved party establish under Section 152 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 to obtain an order for rectification of the register of members?
  Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. (R) Muhammad Zubair vs Mst. Sughran Begum And Another2022 LHC 8218 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-16Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Jan, etc vs Muhammad Ilyas, etc2022 PSC (Crl.) 486 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-02-28Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs The State2022 MLD 1980 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-12
  criminal appealoffshoot caseacquittalSindh Arms Actevidentiary contradictionsconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gambat, which convicted the appellant, Liaquat Ali, under Section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the appellant, having been acquitted in the main case from which the present arms possession charge originated as an offshoot, was entitled to acquittal in the instant case as well. The Sindh High Court, noting the prosecution's concession regarding evidentiary contradictions and the appellant's prior acquittal in the main case (Crime No. 67/2020), allowed the appeal. Relying on the principle established in Manjhi v. The State (PLD 1996 Karachi 345), the Court held that when an accused is acquitted in a main case, they are entitled to acquittal in a case that is merely an offshoot of the primary proceedings. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, discharging his bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal in an offshoot case if they have already been acquitted in the main case?
  • Does the acquittal of an accused in a primary criminal case necessitate the acquittal of the same accused in a related case arising from the same incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs The State, etc2022 LHC 7015 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-22
  criminal appealmurderchance witnessbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidenceocular evidencemedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant, Liaquat Ali, for the murder of Mst. Nasreen Bibi and house trespass. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of the eyewitness testimony. The Lahore High Court found that the prosecution witnesses were chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was not established, and their testimony lacked necessary corroboration. Furthermore, the court noted discrepancies between the medical evidence and the prosecution's timeline, as well as the failure to produce key witnesses, leading to an adverse inference. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The appeal was accepted, the conviction set aside, and the appellant acquitted by extending the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits, and any reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the uncorroborated testimony of a chance witness?
  • Does the failure to produce material witnesses warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to identify an assailant in a criminal trial?
  • What is the standard of proof required for the prosecution to secure a conviction in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali and Shad Muhammad vs The State2022 SCP 52, 2022 SCMR 1097, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-09
  narcoticscharaslife imprisonmentsafe custodyofficial witnesseschain of custodychemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioners under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 59 kilograms of charas from secret cavities in their vehicle. The Trial Court sentenced the petitioners to life imprisonment, a decision subsequently upheld by the High Court. The petitioners challenged the conviction on grounds of non-association of public witnesses and alleged lapses in the safe custody and transmission of samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the petition, held that the testimony of police officials is as reliable as private witnesses unless animus is proven. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, are directory rather than mandatory. The Court emphasized that procedural delays in transmitting samples beyond 72 hours do not automatically invalidate the prosecution's case if the chain of custody is otherwise established and the substantive evidence remains unshattered.

  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Zarin & others vs Mst. Noor-ul-Haram & others2022 PHC 270 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-04Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Hussain vs Mohammad Ashiq2022 LHC 6560 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-20Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs The State2022 YLR 1662 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-28
  dishonoured chequebail applicationprohibitory clausefugitive from lawSection 489-F PPCnon-bailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal bail application filed by the applicant seeking release in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the alleged issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail, particularly given the argument that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant failed to establish grounds for relief. The Court observed that the applicant had remained a fugitive from justice for eight years, and sufficient material existed on record to implicate him. The Court established the principle that bail is not a matter of right in non-bailable offences, even if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Where exceptional circumstances exist, such as the presence of strong evidence or the accused's status as a fugitive, the Court may decline to grant bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court decline bail for an offence that does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an accused who has remained a fugitive from justice for a significant period have a right to be released on bail?
  • Is bail a matter of right in non-bailable offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs Mst. Zulfat & others2022 PHC 632 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs Mohammad Arshad and 2 others2022 PLJ Lahore 351 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-23Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs Mci, etc2022 IHC 196 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-01Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, Gojra etc2022 LHC 7147 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-19Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali and 3 others vs The State2022 MLD 597 · Supreme Court of Gilgit Baltistan · 2021-11-18
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquiryprohibitory clauseconfessionalibicriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant criminal petition was filed under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the murder of Safar Ali. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were prima facie connected to the crime and whether their case warranted further inquiry under the statutory provisions governing bail. The Supreme Court of Gilgit Baltistan held that the principal accused, whose confession led to the recovery of the weapon and who fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497, was not entitled to bail. However, the Court held that the co-accused who were not present at the scene and against whom no overt act was attributed stood on a different footing requiring further inquiry. The Court laid down the principle that bail may be refused to an accused prima facie connected with an offense falling under the prohibitory clause, while co-accused whose involvement is subject to further inquiry and who were absent from the scene of the crime are entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused whose case falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and who has confessed to the crime is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the absence of co-accused from the scene of the occurrence and the lack of specific overt acts attributed to them bring their case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the recovery of incriminating articles on the pointation of an accused disentitles them to the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali alias Khabar and others vs Habibullah and others2022 CLC 1583 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-18Read full judgment →
• Learning Alliance (Private) Limited through Chief Executive and 3 others vs Province Of Punjab through Secretary Housing, Urban Development and Phed and 2 others2022 CLC 793 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-30Read full judgment →
• Lal Bux and others vs Government of Sindh and others2022 SHC 54 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-28Read full judgment →
• Lal Bux @ Lal son of Ghulam Qadir Pitafi vs The State2022 SHC 148 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-20
  narcotic substancechain of custodysafe custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtpolice witnesscriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of charas. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody for the recovered narcotics and whether the conviction could be sustained based solely on the testimony of police officials in the absence of independent corroboration. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the Court found that the nine-day delay in transmitting the samples to the Chemical Examiner, coupled with the absence of evidence regarding the safe custody and transit of the narcotics during that period, created a fatal gap in the chain of custody. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that while police testimony is admissible, the failure to associate independent witnesses in a public place, alongside material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, necessitated the appellant's acquittal. The principle laid down is that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in the transmission of narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner, without proof of safe custody, vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the testimony of police officials sufficient for conviction in a narcotics case where no independent witnesses were associated despite their availability?
  • Does the failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for recovered narcotics render the Chemical Examiner's report unreliable for conviction?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt if only a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Lakson Tobacco Company Limited.,Pakistan Tobacco Company, etc.,F.S.2022 SCP 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  tobacco development cessfiscal statutesstrict constructionlegislative competencetax vs feeprovincial autonomyconstitutional interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals challenging the levy of a tobacco development cess under the North West Frontier Province Finance Act, 1999. The appellants contended that the levy was unconstitutional, lacked clarity regarding the taxable event and the taxpayer, and conflicted with federal legislation. The core legal question was whether the provincial legislature possessed the authority to impose such a cess and whether the statutory basis for the levy—the "tobacco quota"—was sufficiently defined. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the levy was valid. The Court determined that the cess constitutes a fee rather than a tax, as the proceeds are earmarked for specific development activities in tobacco-growing areas, providing a direct benefit to the industry. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the "tobacco quota" refers to the targeted purchase requirements established under existing regulatory frameworks. The judgment reinforces the principle that fiscal statutes should be interpreted to save legislation where possible rather than destroying it, and confirms that a levy earmarked for specific services benefiting the payers is a permissible fee.

  Questions settled

  • Is the tobacco development cess levied under the North West Frontier Province Finance Act, 1999, a tax or a fee?
  • Does the term 'tobacco quota' in the North West Frontier Province Finance Act, 1999, provide a sufficiently certain basis for the levy of a cess?
  • Can a provincial legislature impose a development cess on tobacco production without encroaching upon the federal legislative domain?
  • Should courts interpret fiscal statutes to save legislation rather than striking it down?
  Read full judgment →