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.

• Jehanzeb Khan vs Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad2022 PTD (Trib.) 1202 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2022-04-15Read full judgment →
• Jehanzeb Khan vs Justice of Peace, Additional Sessions Judge-III, Islamabad-East and others2022 MLD 1263 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-03Read full judgment →
• Jehanzeb Khan vs Government of Pakistan thorugh Secretary Information2022 PHC 496 · Peshawar High Court
  pensionary benefitstransferred employeestelecommunication reorganizationconstitutional jurisdictionmaster and servantterms and conditions of serviceresignation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by a former employee of the Telegraph and Telephone Department challenging the refusal of the respondents to pay pension and other service benefits attached to his regular service up to the date his resignation became effective after being transferred to Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited. The core legal question was whether the statutory terms and conditions, including pensionary benefits, of departmental employees transferred to the corporation and subsequently to the company are protected and whether an employee who tendered resignation under a fresh contract remains entitled to past pensionary benefits. The Peshawar High Court held that the terms and conditions of such transferred employees are fully protected by statute and cannot be varied to their disadvantage, and that the right to pension accrued from past service cannot be denied on the pretext of subsequent resignation. The court allowed the petition, declared the refusal illegal, and directed the respondents to release the petitioner's pension and benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the terms and conditions of previous service of departmental employees transferred to the telecommunication corporation and company are protected under the relevant statutory provisions?
  • Whether an employee who resigned from regular service to accept a new package in the company is entitled to pensionary and other benefits attached to their prior service?
  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 to adjudicate matters concerning statutory terms and conditions of telecommunication employees?
  • Whether the pensionary rights of transferred employees can be altered or modified to their detriment without their consent?
  Read full judgment →
• Jehangir Khan vs State and others2022 MLD 429 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-12
  free fightcriminal appealappreciation of evidencealteration of convictionqatl-i-amdbenefit of doubtprosecution version
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and revision petition arose from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bannu, which convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given conflicting versions of the incident and evidence of injuries on the accused. The Court found that the prosecution's version was riddled with inconsistencies regarding the presence of witnesses and the circumstances of the arrest. Conversely, the accused's plea of a free fight was supported by medical evidence of his injuries and torn clothing, which the police had ignored. The Court held that the incident was a result of a free fight rather than a targeted murder, rendering the conviction under Section 302(b) unsustainable. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence to ten years rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the compensation order under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be altered to Section 302(c) when the incident is found to be a free fight?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries on the person of the accused cast doubt on the prosecution's version of the incident?
  • Can the statement of an accused under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted when the prosecution evidence is disbelieved?
  Read full judgment →
• Jehandad Khan vs Mst. Rokhana2022 PHC 586 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-12Read full judgment →
• Jeet Hussain and 2 others vs Janat Begum and 21 others2022 YLR 1331 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-02-18Read full judgment →
• Jawad Khan and others vs National Database And Registration Authority2022 PLC (C.S.) 94 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-01
  public employmentconstitutional petitionlegitimate expectationpromissory estoppelmaintainability of writlachesdiscrimination in service
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three constitutional petitions filed against the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), wherein the petitioners challenged their appointment as Data Entry Operators instead of the advertised posts of Call Centre/Customer Service Executive for which they had successfully qualified tests and interviews. The core legal questions involved whether public sector corporations can subject candidates to unfair employment practices, whether constitutional petitions regarding initial recruitment are maintainable against NADRA, and whether the defense of laches bars relief when similarly placed individuals have already been granted relief by the court. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioners were subjected to arbitrary treatment and exploitation, violating their fundamental rights under Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The court ruled that NADRA is amenable to writ jurisdiction regarding initial recruitment disputes, that the principle of laches does not bar relief when extending the benefit of a prior judicial determination to similarly situated persons, and that the petitioners are entitled to the same relief granted to their colleague. The key principles laid down include the application of equitable doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation against unfair public body actions, and the mandate that similarly placed citizens must not be discriminated against in public employment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether constitutional petitions are maintainable against NADRA in matters relating to initial recruitment?
  • Does the principle of laches act as an absolute bar to relief when similarly placed petitioners have already been granted relief by the court?
  • Can public sector corporations subject job applicants to lower positions after they have successfully qualified for advertised posts through tests and interviews?
  • Are the equitable doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation applicable to correct unfair and arbitrary actions of a public body?
  Read full judgment →
• Jawad Ahmad Mir vs Prof. Dr. Imtiaz Ali Khan, Vice Chancellor, University of Swabi, District Swabi, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2022 SCP 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  stopgap arrangementlook-after chargeVice Chancellor appointmentwrit of quo warrantouniversities actpublic officeinterim charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal was directed against the Peshawar High Court's judgment dismissing the petitioner's writ petition, which had challenged a notification authorizing the Vice Chancellor of the University of Swabi to look after the affairs of the office of Vice Chancellor of Women University, Swabi, as a stopgap arrangement following the expiry of the previous incumbent's tenure. The core legal questions involved whether assigning a look-after charge to another university's Vice Chancellor violated the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2012, and the parameters for issuing a writ of quo warranto. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of a Pro Vice Chancellor and permanent faculty, a stopgap arrangement by the competent authority to run day-to-day university affairs pending regular appointment is lawful and does not constitute a usurpation of office. The court laid down key principles regarding the nature of stopgap/acting charges and the conditions necessary for maintaining a writ of quo warranto against public office holders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether assigning a look-after charge to the Vice Chancellor of another university as a stopgap arrangement violates the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2012?
  • What are the essential grounds and conditions necessary for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto against the holder of a public office?
  • Does a person holding a public office on a stopgap or acting charge basis hold it in a substantive capacity?
  • Whether a former Vice Chancellor has a vested right to claim an extension in tenure upon its expiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Jawaad Ali and another vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1779 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-13
  narcotics possessionchain of custodybenefit of doubtcriminal appealchemical examiner reportsafe custodyrecovery memo
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Jail Appeals against convictions under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where the appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for possession of narcotics. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the chain of custody for the recovered narcotics and whether the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction given material contradictions and the appellants' prior acquittal in related cases arising from the same incident. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It identified significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the timing, location, and conduct of the search. Crucially, the Court found a fatal break in the chain of custody due to the absence of malkhana records or evidence regarding the safe storage of the narcotics. The Court reaffirmed the principle that any break in the chain of custody renders the Chemical Examiner's report unreliable. Furthermore, it held that an acquittal in a related case involving the same recovery memo creates sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal in the instant case, emphasizing that the benefit of the doubt is a right of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a break in the chain of custody of narcotic samples render the Chemical Examiner's report unreliable for conviction?
  • Can an acquittal in a related case involving the same recovery memo create sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal in a subsequent narcotics trial?
  • Is the prosecution required to produce malkhana records to establish the safe custody of seized narcotics?
  • Does the failure to produce cited prosecution witnesses and the presence of material contradictions in testimony entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Khan, etc. vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, etc2022 LHC 7591 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Javed Khan vs The State2022 PHC 114 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-15Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs The State2022 SCP 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-25
  narcotics traffickingchain of custodyjudicial confessionbenefit of doubtexculpatory statementcriminal appealsafe custody of samples
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 25 kilograms of charas. The core legal questions concerned the prosecution's failure to establish the chain of custody for narcotics samples and the permissible use of a judicial confession that contained exculpatory elements. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the sample parcels, creating a fatal gap in the evidence. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a confession must be accepted or rejected in its entirety; it cannot be split to use only inculpatory parts while discarding exculpatory ones, especially when the prosecution's case is otherwise doubtful. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the only remaining evidence is an exculpatory confession, the court must accept the statement as a whole, which necessitates the acquittal of the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court selectively accept the inculpatory part of a confession while rejecting the exculpatory part when no other evidence exists?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to establish the safe custody and transmission of narcotics samples?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if the prosecution's evidence is rejected and the remaining confessional statement is exculpatory?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused before the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs The State through Prosecutor General of Punjab and another2022 SCMR 1424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-31
  pre-arrest bailbail petitionattempted murdertrespassfalse implicationcivil disputeco-accused bailfurther inquiryconstitutional petitionpersonal liberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution seeking pre-arrest bail for charges under sections 324/452/337-L(2)/134, P.P.C., following the rejection of bail by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, accused of attempted murder and trespass without causing injury, was entitled to pre-arrest bail, particularly given a pending civil dispute, allegations of false implication, and the fact that his co-accused son had already been granted post-arrest bail. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted pre-arrest bail. The Court held that the possibility of false implication to gain advantage in civil litigation could not be ruled out, emphasizing that personal liberty is a precious constitutional right not to be curtailed on bald allegations. The case fell within Section 497(2) Cr.P.C., warranting further inquiry, and the Court reaffirmed that the merits of a case can be considered when granting pre-arrest bail, especially when a similarly placed co-accused is already on bail.

  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs The State through D.A.G., Islamabad & another2022 SCP 334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-01
  post-arrest bailbail conditionssurety bondsfinancial deposit conditionliberty of accusedcyber crime
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against an order of the High Court, which granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner under sections 13/14 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 read with sections 420, 468, 471 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, but conditioned his release upon the deposit of Rs.3.5 million in the trial court. The core legal question was whether a court, upon deciding to release an accused on bail, can lawfully impose extraneous financial conditions or riders beyond the submission of bail and surety bonds. The Supreme Court held that once an accused is found entitled to bail on merits, the order cannot be subjected to riders, conditions, or financial deposits meant to secure payments or settlements. The ratio laid down is that bail is an interlocutory arrangement solely intended to secure the attendance of the accused through surety bonds under section 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and courts cannot compel an accused to barter freedom or impose conditions foreign to the statute.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court while granting bail to an accused can impose conditions requiring the deposit of money or recovery of alleged amounts?
  • Can the grant of bail on merits be subjected to riders or conditions other than the submission of bail and surety bonds under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is it permissible to impose a condition upon an accused person in a bail order to desist from the repetition of the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal Khan vs Government of The Punjab and others2022 PLC (C.S.) 675 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-18
  constitutional petitionfamily claim basisdriver constableage criteriapolicy mattersmedical invalidationdiscrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a quasi-judicial order dated 23.06.2015 whereby his application for appointment as a Driver Constable on a family claim basis was rejected on the ground that he was overage. The Petitioner's father had retired on medical grounds and applied for the Petitioner's appointment under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The core legal questions involved whether the Petitioner's age was correctly calculated and whether the department's refusal and policy criteria violated principles of non-discrimination or applicable rules. The Court held that the department rightly calculated the Petitioner's age from the date he submitted his application according to prevailing departmental policy and Standing Orders, and that the judiciary cannot interfere in internal policy matters of departments unless they are capricious or arbitrary. The constitutional petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the age of a candidate applying for a post on a family claim basis should be calculated from the date of submission of the application by the retired employee or the date of submission by the candidate?
  • Can the courts interfere in the policy matters of government departments regarding recruitment criteria?
  • Whether the refusal of a public appointment based on departmental standing orders and established rules constitutes unconstitutional discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal and 5 others vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government, Peshawar and 4 others2022 CLC 502 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-19
  temporary injunctiontenancy expirationrevisional jurisdictiondilapidated propertyprima facie casebalance of convenienceirreparable loss
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns five civil revision petitions filed against concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed the petitioners' applications for temporary injunctions regarding the possession of shops in Old Lari Adda, Kohat City. The petitioners, former tenants whose lease agreements expired in 2015, sought to restrain the respondents from dispossessing them, alleging mala fide notices for eviction. The core legal question was whether the petitioners established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss sufficient to warrant a temporary injunction. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a prima facie case, noting that the tenancy had expired and the petitioners did not contest the respondents' claim that the shops were in a dilapidated, dangerous condition requiring reconstruction. The Court emphasized that allegations of mala fide require evidence, which had not been produced despite the suits pending for over two years. Consequently, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that in the absence of a valid tenancy and given the dilapidated state of the property, the petitioners were not entitled to injunctive relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expiration of a tenancy agreement preclude a tenant from claiming a right to continued possession against the landlord?
  • Can a temporary injunction be granted where the allegations of mala fide require evidence that has not yet been produced?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts in its revisional jurisdiction?
  • Is a tenant entitled to an injunction against eviction when the property is in a dilapidated condition requiring reconstruction?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Imran vs Muhammad Arif2022 PHC 228, 2022 PLJ 155 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
• Javed Awan vs State2022 PHC 592, 2024 YLR 235 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-07Read full judgment →
• Javed alias Jaidi vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1067 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-07
  murderdeath sentencechance witnessbenefit of the doubtmotiveweapon recoveryprivate complaintacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Javed alias Jaidi, handed down by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from a private complaint concerning a murder at a billiard club. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance witnesses who failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for their presence at the scene, delays in reporting the incident to the police, inconsequential forensic evidence regarding the weapon recovery, and the reliability of the alleged motive. The Lahore High Court held that the testimony of the eyewitnesses was highly doubtful due to their unexplained presence and material inconsistencies, and that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt is sufficient to acquit an accused person, allowing the appeal, setting aside the conviction, and answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a chance witness requires cautious scrutiny and a satisfactory explanation of presence at the scene of the crime?
  • Does a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in the prosecution case suffice to extend the benefit of doubt and acquit the accused?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery and forensic report when comparison tests are inconclusive?
  • How does an unexplained delay in reporting the crime to the police impact the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Ali Shaikh vs The State and others2022 SHC 236 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-23Read full judgment →
• Javed Ahmed Mir vs Muhammad Afzal and others2022 CLC 668 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-18Read full judgment →
• Javed Ahmed Khan and 5 others vs Mst. Noreen (Widow) and 8 thers2022 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 57 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-03-01Read full judgment →
• Javed Aftab vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 835 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-26
  murderbenefit of doubtchance witnesspost-mortem delayadverse inferencecriminal appealocular evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal appeal against the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant for murder, alongside a revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court emphasized that a substantial, unexplained delay in conducting a post-mortem examination strongly suggests that the prosecution's eye-witnesses were not present at the scene and were subsequently procured. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that "chance witnesses" must provide justifiable reasons for their presence at the crime scene; failing this, their testimony is unreliable. The Court also held that the prosecution's failure to produce a Serologist's report to verify that blood found on a recovered weapon was human blood justifies an adverse inference against the prosecution. Additionally, the Court found the ocular account self-contradictory and the alleged motive unproven, thereby necessitating the appellant's acquittal based on the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in conducting a post-mortem examination warrant an inference that prosecution eye-witnesses were not present at the crime scene?
  • Is the testimony of a chance witness admissible without independent corroboration when the reason for their presence at the crime scene is not established?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for failing to produce a Serologist's report confirming that blood found on a recovered weapon is human blood?
  Read full judgment →
• Javaid Iqbal Butt vs Riffat Mahmood Ghauri etc2022 LHC 3932, 2024 MLD 485 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-20Read full judgment →
• Javaid Iqbal and others vs Mohammad Shabbir and others2022 MLD 1540 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-06-09Read full judgment →
• Javaid Anwar Abbasi, Assistant Engineer Public Works Department2022 PLJ AJ&K 33, 2022 KLR Civil Cases 299 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  writ petitiondisciplinary proceedingspreliminary inquirysuspensionconstitutional jurisdictioninterlocutory orderscivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, seeking to set aside a preliminary inquiry report, a suspension notification, and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977 against the petitioner, an Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional writ jurisdiction, can interfere with or quash interlocutory administrative steps such as a preliminary inquiry report, show-cause notice, or the initiation of disciplinary proceedings before a final order is passed by the competent authority. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, holding that interference in such interlocutory administrative matters and preliminary inquiries is unwarranted and prematurely preempts the exclusive domain and jurisdiction of the competent authority and the Inquiry Officer, especially where the petitioner has an adequate opportunity to present his defense. The court laid down the principle that the High Court will not stifle ongoing disciplinary proceedings or quash show-cause notices and preliminary inquiry reports at their inception unless shown to be patently without jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977 be quashed in writ jurisdiction at the stage of a preliminary inquiry report or charge-sheet?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere with interlocutory administrative orders such as the appointment of an Inquiry Officer prior to the final decision of the competent authority?
  • Does a civil servant have an alternate and efficacious remedy by participating in departmental inquiry proceedings instead of invoking constitutional jurisdiction against a show-cause notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Jannat Bibi and 2 others vs The State2022 MLD 738 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-09
  circumstantial evidenceretracted confessionextra-judicial confessiondelayed nominationsupplementary statementbenefit of doubtmurder trialcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of criminal appeals filed against the trial court's judgment whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Muhammad Jabbar. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency and reliability of circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value of delayed supplementary statements for nomination, and the credibility of retracted extra-judicial and judicial confessions. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution relied entirely on weak, uncorroborated circumstantial evidence from interested witnesses, that the delayed nomination of the appellants was the result of deliberation and consultation, and that the retracted confessional statements were neither voluntary nor corroborated by independent evidence. Consequently, the High Court established the key principles that an accused cannot be convicted on mere suspicion or conjecture, that a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence is mandatory, and that a retracted confession requires strong corroboration in material particulars to sustain a conviction. The appeals were accepted and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence that lacks an interconnected chain and independent corroboration?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a retracted confession in a criminal trial?
  • Does medical evidence alone constitute sufficient corroboration regarding the identity of an accused person?
  • What is the legal effect of a delayed nomination of accused persons through a supplementary statement without a plausible explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs Humaira Allah Dita and another2022 YLR 1123 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-02Read full judgment →
• Jan Alam vs The State2022 YLR 2148 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-11-11
  pre-arrest bailrule of consistencytampering of recorddelay in FIRcivil litigationfurther inquirycorrupt practices
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Jan Alam, who was implicated in Case FIR No. 13 of 2021 registered at Police Station FIA Gilgit under Sections 409, 471, and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, on allegations of tampering with revenue records regarding land disputes dating back to 2001. The core legal questions involved whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed given a pending civil litigation on the same subject matter, an unexplained twenty-year delay in lodging the FIR, and the application of the rule of consistency following the release of a co-accused revenue official under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, holding that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry, noting mala fides behind the prosecution due to contemporaneous civil litigation, the lack of necessity for custodial interrogation since the case relied on official records already in police custody, and the application of the rule of consistency with the co-accused. The key legal principles laid down include that the rule of consistency applies at the bail stage when a primary co-accused is released, that unexplained long delays make the prosecution case doubtful, and that bail should generally be favored over incarceration where custodial interrogation serves no useful purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when civil litigation between the parties on the same subject matter is already pending adjudication?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply to grant pre-arrest bail to an accused when a co-accused with a more grievous role has been released during investigation?
  • Is an unexplained delay of twenty years in lodging an FIR sufficient to make the prosecution case doubtful at the bail stage?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the prosecution's case is based entirely on official records already in the custody of investigating authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamsher Ali and 3 others vs The State and 2 others2022 YLR 2345 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-28
  police reportSection 173 Cr.P.C.magisterial jurisdictionsuspension of police officersfake encounterdepartmental inquirySection 561-A Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal miscellaneous applications challenging a Magistrate's order regarding a police investigation report. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate, while exercising powers under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, possesses the authority to direct the suspension of police officers and mandate departmental action against them upon disagreeing with a police report. The High Court held that while a Magistrate is empowered to agree or disagree with a police report and may reject a "C" class (cancelled) report, they cannot issue administrative directions for the suspension of police officers or dictate departmental disciplinary actions, as such matters fall within the exclusive domain of the competent authority under the Police Rules. The court affirmed that the Magistrate's role under Section 173 and Section 190 is to assess evidence summarily, not to adjudicate guilt or issue service-related mandates. Consequently, the court set aside the Magistrate's administrative directions while maintaining the disposal of the police report, further invoking inherent powers under Section 561-A to order a departmental inquiry via a Joint Investigation Team.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate have the authority to order the suspension of police officers while disposing of a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Magistrate, upon disagreeing with a police report, issue binding directions to the Inspector General of Police regarding departmental disciplinary actions?
  • Is the opinion of an investigating officer in a police report binding upon a Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamshed alias Jimmi vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 592 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-04
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryrobberycriminal investigationrecovery of stolen propertymedico-legal evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Jamshed alias Jimmi, in connection with an FIR registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged robbery. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the investigation and the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. The Court observed that while the petitioner was nominated in the FIR, there was a history of animosity between the parties, and the petitioner had previously been found innocent by the police in a separate case. Crucially, the prosecution failed to produce a medico-legal certificate to substantiate the alleged torture of the complainant, and no recovery of the snatched items was made during the petitioner's eleven-day physical remand. Consequently, the Court held that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds, establishing the principle that the absence of corroborative evidence and recovery, coupled with a plausible defense of enmity, warrants the grant of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to recover stolen items during physical remand constitute grounds for further inquiry in a robbery case?
  • Is the absence of a medico-legal certificate relevant when determining the strength of the prosecution's case for bail?
  • Can a history of enmity between the complainant and the accused be a factor in granting post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamshaid alias Bablu, Sana Ullah alias Fouji, Rashid Mehmood vs The State2022 LHC 1910 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Jamshaid alias Bablu and others vs The State and another2022 YLR 1822 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-17
  kidnapping for ransomtest identification paradebenefit of doubtanti-terrorismcriminal appealcall detail recordcorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals against convictions and sentences passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court for kidnapping for ransom. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly considering the evidentiary value of the Test Identification Parade (TIP), Call Detail Records (CDR), and the recovery of alleged ransom money. The Lahore High Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of doubt. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with discrepancies. It laid down that a Test Identification Parade is merely a corroborative piece of evidence which loses its sanctity if conducted jointly or without specific role attribution. Furthermore, the Court established that Call Detail Records, without transcripts or end-to-end audio verification, are insufficient to prove guilt. Finally, the Court reiterated that the rule of benefit of doubt is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, requiring that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Test Identification Parade (TIP) retain its evidentiary value when conducted jointly for multiple accused without attributing specific roles?
  • Can Call Detail Records (CDR) be relied upon as substantive evidence without transcripts of calls or end-to-end audio recordings?
  • Is the non-production of a kidnapped minor as a witness fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does the failure to produce a key witness, leading to an adverse inference, entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamila Anwar Saeed, Head Mistress Girls High School Sangar Pathra2022 PLJ AJ&K 110 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  constitutional petitiondeputation policyservice tribunalalternate remedysuperannuationcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Headmistress in the Education Department of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, filed a constitutional petition under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, seeking directions for her adjustment, payment of salary, issuance of a retirement notification, and pension after remaining on deputation in federal institutions for approximately 15 years. The core legal question was whether a civil servant exceeding the maximum permissible deputation period and subsequently facing termination can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court while bypassing the Service Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the petitioner remained on deputation in violation of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Deputation Policy and that her termination order could only be challenged before the Service Tribunal under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal Act, 1975, as an alternate remedy exists. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not exercise its constitutional jurisdiction in service matters where an efficacious alternate remedy is available before the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can exercise constitutional jurisdiction in service matters when an alternate remedy is available before the Service Tribunal?
  • Can a civil servant remain on deputation beyond the maximum period prescribed under the Deputation Policy?
  • Whether an order of termination of a civil servant can be challenged through a writ petition under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamil Akhtar Khan and another vs Muhammad Saleem Sadiq and others2022 YLR 1660 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-10Read full judgment →
• Jameel Ahmed vs Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited through General Manager and 3 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 481 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-13
  Voluntarily Separation SchemeVSSpensionary benefitsconstructive res judicatadoctrine of lachesservice length calculationPTCL
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the implementation of an appellate order dated 20.6.2008 regarding the petitioner's benefits under the Voluntarily Separation Scheme (VSS) of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL). The petitioner contended that his training period should have been included in his length of service calculation, thereby entitling him to additional pensionary benefits. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having voluntarily opted for the VSS and accepted its benefits, could subsequently challenge the calculation of his service length and demand further pensionary relief, and whether the petition was barred by previous litigation and the doctrine of laches. The Court held that the issue was already settled by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2506 of 2016, which established that employees who voluntarily accepted VSS benefits, including separation bonuses contingent on service length, could not later claim pensionary benefits based on a different service calculation. Furthermore, the Court held that the petition was barred by constructive res judicata and laches, as the petitioner had previously litigated the same cause of action unsuccessfully. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee who voluntarily accepts benefits under a Voluntary Separation Scheme later challenge the calculation of their length of service to claim pensionary benefits?
  • Does the doctrine of constructive res judicata bar a petition where the petitioner has previously litigated the same cause of action?
  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding the length of service of an employee be adjudicated under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is a petition filed twelve years after the accrual of the cause of action barred by the doctrine of laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamal Shaikh S/O Bilal Shaikh vs Iird Adj Khi Central & Ors2022 SHC 380 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-12Read full judgment →
• Jamal Nasir vs Province of Sindh & Others2022 SHC 486 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-26Read full judgment →
• Jam Zeeshan Ali vs Returning Officer and others2022 CLC 119 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-12Read full judgment →
• Jam Siraj Ahmad vs Govt. of Punjab, etc.2022 LHC 1878 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-10
  civil servantpromotionminor penaltydeferment of promotionProvincial Selection BoardPerformance Evaluation Reportconstitutional petitionjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a civil servant working in the Excise and Taxation Department challenging the order denying and deferring his promotion to the post of Director (BS-19) on the pretext of a minor penalty of withholding of increments and incomplete service records. The core legal questions revolved around whether a minor penalty or the pendency of disciplinary proceedings can lawfully constitute a bar to a civil servant's promotion, and whether incomplete Performance Evaluation Reports attributable to the department can prejudice an employee's right to be considered for promotion. The Lahore High Court held that the imposition of a minor penalty or incomplete service records maintained by the department cannot legally obstruct a civil servant from being considered or promoted. The Court ruled that denying promotion on such grounds amounts to double jeopardy and an extraneous, malafide consideration. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the Provincial Selection Board was directed to reconsider the petitioner's case in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the imposition of a minor penalty on a civil servant can lawfully serve as a ground to defer or deny his promotion?
  • Does the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant legally justify withholding his promotion or non-consideration of his case?
  • Is it permissible to penalize a civil servant for incomplete Performance Evaluation Reports when the duty to maintain them rests upon the administrative department?
  • To what extent can the High Court exercise judicial review under Article 199 over the administrative determination of fitness of a civil servant for promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahangir Muggo and others vs Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan and others2022 CLD 1325 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-07-21Read full judgment →
• Jahangir Muggo and others vs Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan and others2022 IHC 194 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Jahangir Khan vs The State through Prosecutor General Balochistan2022 MLD 1716 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-28
  alteration of chargestolen propertydacoitycriminal revisionjurisdictiontransfer of case
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition against the order of the Sessions Judge, Sibi, which dismissed an application for the alteration of the charge under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the transfer of the case to the Judicial Magistrate. The core legal question concerned whether mere possession of a stolen vehicle without established knowledge of its use in a dacoity attracts Section 412, P.P.C., and whether the trial court has the power to alter the charge and transfer the case. The Balochistan High Court held that mere possession or registration of an FIR in another province does not ipso facto prove knowledge, meaning Section 412 is not attracted without proof of knowledge, warranting alteration of the charge to Section 411 and transfer of the case to the Judicial Magistrate. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must establish the accused's knowledge that a recovered property was used in a dacoity to sustain a charge under Section 412, P.P.C., and trial courts are empowered to alter charges at any stage prior to judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere possession of a stolen vehicle attract Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof that the accused knew it was used in a dacoity?
  • Can a trial court alter a charge at any stage prior to the pronouncement of judgment under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When should a case be remitted to a court of inferior jurisdiction possessing concurrent jurisdiction according to the rules of propriety?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahangir Khan vs The State and another2022 IHC 46 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-16
  pre-arrest baildishonour of chequeSection 489-F PPCcriminal liabilitycontractual disputetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 28/2022 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged dishonour of two cheques issued by the Petitioner to the Complainant pursuant to a Restaurant Management Agreement. The core legal question was whether the cheques were issued dishonestly, a necessary ingredient for the offence under Section 489-F, given the Petitioner's contention that they were intended as security for cash payments. The Court held that because the cheques were tendered under an agreement and there was a dispute regarding whether cash payments were made for the relevant months, the element of dishonesty could not be prima facie established at the bail stage. Emphasizing that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible during bail proceedings, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where cheques are issued pursuant to a contractual agreement, the determination of whether they were issued dishonestly requires trial evidence, and such ambiguity entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt at the pre-arrest bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a cheque pursuant to a management agreement, where cash payment is disputed, prima facie satisfy the requirement of dishonesty under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the pre-arrest bail stage regarding the intent behind issuing a cheque?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the underlying dispute involves a contractual obligation to pay rent or management fees?
  Read full judgment →
• Jafar and others vs The State2022 PCRLJ 891 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-10
  murderbenefit of doubtocular and medical conflictimprovements in testimonycorroborative evidencecriminal appealacquittaldeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to death or life imprisonment in a murder case emanating from a private complaint. The core legal questions involved the credibility of ocular testimony marred by material improvements and contradictions, the glaring conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence regarding the distance of firing and presence of blackening, and the reliance on corroborative recovery evidence in the absence of trustworthy substantive evidence. The Lahore High Court held that material improvements in witness statements, direct contradiction by medical evidence concerning the distance of shots, and the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence rendered the prosecution case doubtful. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellants on the benefit of doubt, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The key principle laid down is that when direct ocular testimony is disbelieved due to major contradictions, improvements, and conflict with medical evidence, corroborative pieces of evidence like recoveries alone cannot form the basis of a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on corroborative pieces of evidence when the direct ocular testimony has been disbelieved?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when material ocular evidence directly conflicts with medical evidence regarding the distance of fire?
  • Does the making of deliberate improvements by eye-witnesses render their testimony untrustworthy?
  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to accused persons when multiple circumstances create reasonable doubt in the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Jafar Ali vs Lahore Development Authority etc.2022 PLJ Lahore 480 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-27Read full judgment →
• J.K. Twills and Drills (Pvt.) Ltd. and another vs Premier Insurance Company2022 LHC 6669, 2023 CLD 1098, 2022 [M] CLR 1566 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →
• Izhar Ullah vs The State & another2022 PHC 596, 2023 MLD 777 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-19Read full judgment →
• Izat Ali vs Muhammad Ashfaq and others2022 CLC 2090 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-07-12Read full judgment →
• Ittefaq Sugar Mills through authorized Director vs Government Of Punjab2022 CLC 713 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-29Read full judgment →
• Issa Khan vs The State etc2022 PHC 234 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-22Read full judgment →
• Israr Alias Qari vs The State through Additional Advocate General, Mirpur2022 MLD 1812 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-04-22
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailnarcoticscharastentative assessmentprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the suspension of a seven-year sentence of simple imprisonment and fine imposed on the petitioner under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The petitioner argued that as the sentence was less than ten years and he had served almost half of it, he was entitled to bail under the principles governing offences not falling within the prohibitory clause. The State opposed, arguing that the trial court had already been lenient given the recovery of 2,460 grams of charas. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the application, holding that the power to suspend a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is discretionary and not wider than the power to grant bail under Section 497. The Court ruled that a sentence should generally only be suspended if there is no chance of the conviction being maintained, and since the petitioner failed to point out any patent illegality or irregularity in the trial court's judgment, suspension was unwarranted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the power of an appellate court to suspend a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is wider than the power to grant bail under Section 497?
  • Can a convict seek suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely on the ground of the length of the sentence without pointing out any patent illegality in the conviction?
  • Under what circumstances may an appellate court tentatively assess evidence when deciding an application for suspension of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Israr Ali & 03 others vs Govt: of KPK & others2022 PHC 172 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-13Read full judgment →
• Israr Ahmed Afzal vs Mehtabuddin (deceased) and others2022 IHC 144 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-19Read full judgment →
• Israr Ahmad vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2022 PHC 636 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Islamic Education Trust through General Secretary vs Province Of Sindh2022 CLC 344 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-04Read full judgment →
• Islamabad High Court Bar Association through its President Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, Islamabad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others2022 PLD Supreme Court 511 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-26
  constitutional petitionfreedom of assemblyfreedom of movementright to lifebreach of court assurancecontempt of courttrichotomy of powerspublic order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a constitutional petition filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by the Islamabad High Court Bar Association complaining against the blocking of roads and highways in Islamabad by the Federal Government to prevent a political party's protest march, infringing fundamental rights under Articles 9, 15, and 16. During proceedings, the Supreme Court had earlier arranged a peaceful venue for the rally based on assurances given by the political leadership. Subsequently, the Attorney General for Pakistan filed a miscellaneous application alleging breach of these assurances as protestors moved towards the Red Zone, causing destruction and clashes. The core legal questions involved whether responsibility for mob violence could be attributed to party leadership, the maintainability of seeking executive orders from the Court, and whether contempt proceedings should be initiated. The Court held that proceedings for violation of court assurances are separate, dismissing the miscellaneous application as misconceived, while disposing of the main petition as infructuous since the protest was called off. The key principle laid down is that maintaining law and order is strictly the domain of the executive under the trichotomy of powers, and fundamental rights like freedom of assembly and movement are subject to reasonable, proportionate restrictions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can pass prohibitory and regulatory orders empowering law enforcement agencies to maintain law and order?
  • Does a petition regarding blockade of roads and political protests become infructuous once the political party calls off its sit-in?
  • Whether violation of an undertaking or assurance given to the Court requires separate independent proceedings rather than a miscellaneous application?
  • Does maintaining law and order fall within the exclusive domain and mandate of the executive under the principle of trichotomy of powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Islam Shah S/O Syed Kamal Shah & Another vs The State2022 SHC 498 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-03
  narcotic smugglingsafe custodychain of custodyreasonable doubtchemical examiner reportcriminal appealnarcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life sentences imposed by the Special Court (Control of Narcotic Substances) for the smuggling of 80 kilograms of hashish under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody for the narcotic samples and whether material contradictions in witness testimony regarding the recovery process undermined the conviction. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the court found fatal flaws in the chain of custody, noting that the official responsible for transmitting the samples to the chemical examiner was neither examined nor produced, rendering the chemical report unreliable. Furthermore, significant contradictions between the complainant and the mashir regarding the number of sealed parcels created reasonable doubt. The court reaffirmed the principle that safe custody and transmission of narcotics are fundamental to a conviction and that any break in this chain is fatal. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to prove the safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples to the chemical examiner vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery of contraband sufficient to warrant an acquittal?
  • Is the heinousness of a narcotics charge sufficient grounds to convict an accused in the absence of reliable evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ishtiaq Ahmed and others vs Public Service Commission through Chairman Public Service Commission, Aj&K and others2022 PLJ AJ&K 76 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Ishrat Swaleh vs Mst. Farzana Shaikh & others2022 SHC 276, 2024 PLD Sindh 28 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-10Read full judgment →
• Ishaque vs Noor Ahmed and others2022 YLR 295 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-13
  acquittal appealmedical evidence contradictionocular testimonyenmityindependent corroborationpresumption of innocencesafe custody of forensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the trial court's judgment whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under sections 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence, unexplained delays in sending recovery items to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and pre-existing enmity between the parties. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony regarding the distance of firing and age of injuries, the prosecution failed to establish safe custody of forensic items, and the witnesses were closely related interested persons lacking independent corroboration. The court reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal order reinforces the presumption of innocence and will not be interfered with absent misreading or non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal judgment can be interfered with in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Does oral ocular testimony prevail when it is inconsistent with medical evidence regarding the distance and nature of injuries?
  • Is independent corroboration required when eye-witnesses are closely related and there is a history of prior enmity between the parties?
  • What is the effect of an unexplained delay in sending recovered crime articles and blood-stained earth to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Ishaq vs The State2022 SCMR 1422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-27
  Control of Narcotic Substances Actsafe custodysafe transmissionbenefit of doubtchain of custodysample parcelsacquittalnarcotics conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, brought by leave of the Court, challenged the judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions pertained to the evidentiary value of narcotics recovery when prosecution fails to establish safe custody and safe transmission of samples, fails to prove vehicle ownership, and fails to produce the recovered vehicle or its remnants. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt. The Court held that failure to produce the Moharrar or the constable depositing samples, unexplained delay between recovery and receipt at the laboratory, and absence of evidence regarding safe custody create a clear risk of tampering. Consequently, such fatal prosecutorial defects prevent the prosecution from establishing its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of prosecution to prove safe custody and safe transmission of sample parcels entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Can a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be sustained when neither the Moharrar nor the depositing constable is produced as a witness?
  • What is the effect of an unexplained delay between the recovery of narcotics and their receipt at the laboratory on the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Irum Masood Etc vs Ministry of Information and Broad Casting, Islamabad, Etc2022 IHC 262 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-08Read full judgment →
• Irshad Begum and Others vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Senior Member Board of Revenue_Secretary Rehabiliation and 5 others2022 CLC 1876 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-04-26Read full judgment →
• Kewal vs The State2022 YLR 1252 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-06-04
  dacoitycriminal appealnon-prosecutioninherent jurisdictionfugitive from lawappreciation of evidenceacquittalSection 561-A CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for dacoity under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant, previously convicted by the trial court, challenged the judgment after his initial appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution during his period as a fugitive. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of an appeal filed after the dismissal of a prior appeal for non-prosecution and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction. The Court held that while a fugitive from law loses the right of audience, once the convict is recaptured or surrenders, the Court may invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall an order of dismissal and resurrect the appeal. On merits, the Court found the prosecution's case suffered from material contradictions, delayed reporting, and unreliable witness testimony, leading to an acquittal. The Court emphasized that when evidence is misread and misappreciated, resulting in a miscarriage of justice, the conviction cannot be sustained, especially when co-accused have been acquitted on the same evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court recall an order dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution if the appellant was a fugitive at the time of dismissal but has since been arrested?
  • Does the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow for the resurrection of an appeal dismissed for non-appearance?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution evidence contains material contradictions and the FIR is delayed without explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ali and Others vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1721 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-07
  criminal appealdeath sentence confirmationprocedural illegalitysection 342 statementanti-terrorism jurisdictionremandtrial procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions for murder and related offences, alongside a confirmation reference for a death sentence. The core legal questions addressed whether the trial court committed procedural illegalities by adopting prosecution evidence recorded in the absence of a co-accused, failing to put all incriminating evidence to the accused during their examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and failing to determine its own jurisdiction regarding potential terrorism offences. The Court held that the trial court’s procedure was fundamentally flawed, violating mandatory provisions of section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the failure to confront the accused with incriminating evidence vitiated the proceedings. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, answering the confirmation reference in the negative, and remanded the cases for a de novo trial. The judgment establishes that evidence recorded in the absence of an accused cannot be adopted against them, and that trial courts must strictly adhere to procedural requirements and correctly determine their jurisdiction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 when offences involve serious violence against police.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court adopt evidence recorded in the absence of a co-accused after the charge is amended?
  • Does the failure to put all incriminating evidence to an accused during their examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
  • Is an offence involving the murder of a police officer during a patrol required to be tried under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can a trial court rely on section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to cure the violation of mandatory provisions of section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshaad alias Shadan vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 348 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-14
  post-arrest bailfirearm injuryprohibitory clauseocular evidencemedical corroborationcriminal trespass
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Irshaad alias Shadan, who is accused in FIR No. 20/2021 for offences including attempted murder, kidnapping, and house trespass. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the evidence on record. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the FIR, and the ocular account of the complainant was corroborated by medical evidence confirming a firearm injury declared as Ghayr Jaifah Munaqqilah. Furthermore, the court noted that the offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the recovery of the weapon of offence from the petitioner and the investigation report finding him guilty provided sufficient prima facie incriminating material. The court established the principle that where there is strong ocular evidence corroborated by medical reports and recovery of the weapon in a non-bailable offence, bail should be refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is post-arrest bail appropriate when ocular evidence is corroborated by medical reports and the recovery of the weapon?
  • Does the nomination of an accused in the FIR coupled with a medical report confirming injury constitute sufficient prima facie material to deny bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Wahid vs Lucky Cement Limited and 9 others2022 PLD Sindh 69 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-12Read full judgment →
• Irfan vs The State and another2022 KLR Criminal Cases 393 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-29
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayprotracted trialrapeunder-trial prisonerstatutory right to bail
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving an offence under section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a remand of his trial by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the protracted nature of the trial, despite the seriousness of the charge. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that he had been in continuous detention for over five years. The Court emphasized that the right to bail under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a statutory right that cannot be denied unless the delay is attributable to the accused or the accused falls under the exclusionary criteria of the fourth proviso. Finding no evidence of delay caused by the petitioner or that he was a hardened criminal, the Court granted the petition, reiterating that statutory bail cannot be refused on hyper-technical grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right to bail under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a statutory right that can be denied based on judicial discretion?
  • Can bail under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be refused if the delay in trial is not attributable to the accused?
  • Does a remanded case, where the conviction is set aside and the matter sent back for retrial, qualify the accused as an under-trial prisoner for the purposes of statutory bail?
  • Under what circumstances can an accused be denied bail under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ullah vs The State etc2022 PHC 150 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-10
  dying declarationcircumstantial evidencemurder referenceqatl-e-amdcriminal appealevidentiary valueconviction reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a police official, receiving a death sentence, alongside conviction under Section 15-AA of the Arms Act. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the dying declaration of the deceased and circumstantial evidence, including call data records and forensic reports. Upon appeal, the High Court reassessed the evidence, noting that while the dying declaration was corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, the prosecution's narrative regarding the incident's location and circumstances contained significant inconsistencies, particularly regarding a physical struggle in a maize field not disclosed by the complainant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the prerequisites for a conviction under Section 302(a) PPC. Consequently, the Court set aside the death sentence, converting the conviction to Section 302(c) PPC, and sentenced the appellant to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment. The Court affirmed that while a dying declaration is admissible, it requires careful scrutiny and corroboration, and inconsistencies regarding the mode of incident warrant a reduction in sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying declaration can form the sole basis for a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Can a court convert a conviction from Section 302(a) to Section 302(c) PPC when the prosecution's narrative regarding the mode of the incident is inconsistent?
  • Does the suppression of real facts by both parties during an incident allow for the inference of a right of private defence?
  • Is a forensic report confirming the match between crime empties and a recovered weapon sufficient to sustain a conviction on its own?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ullah vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Higher Education, Islamabad and othersccc · Peshawar High Court
  writ jurisdictionstatutory bodynatural justiceservice terminationreinstatementdepartmental proceedingsemployment law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the termination of the petitioner from his position as Manager (Admin & Finance) at the National University of Computer & Emerging Sciences. The core legal questions were whether the University is a statutory body amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and whether the termination of a confirmed employee without a hearing was lawful. The Court held that the University, established by the National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences Ordinance, 2000, is a statutory body, and its rules possess statutory status. Consequently, the Court found the termination order, which stigmatized the petitioner with 'unsatisfactory performance,' illegal as it violated principles of natural justice by condemning the petitioner unheard. The key principle laid down is that where an employee is terminated based on allegations of misconduct or unsatisfactory performance, even if the employment terms allow for termination on notice, the employer must conduct proper departmental proceedings and provide the employee an opportunity to defend themselves. The termination was set aside, and the petitioner was reinstated.

  Questions settled

  • Is the National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences a statutory body amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Do service rules framed by the Board of Governors and approved by the Board of Trustees of a statutory university possess statutory status?
  • Can a confirmed employee be terminated for unsatisfactory performance without providing an opportunity to be heard?
  • Does the termination of an employee on grounds of unsatisfactory performance constitute a stigma requiring departmental proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ullah vs Fayaz & others2022 PHC 562, 2025 MLD 918 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-05Read full judgment →
• Irfan Saleem vs The State2022 YLR 1782 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-21
  murder referenceocular evidencedeath sentence mitigationdefective investigationchance witnessunproven motiveQatl-e-Amdhouse trespass
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Murder Reference and a Criminal Appeal arising from a conviction under Section 302(b) and Section 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased and house trespass. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitnesses, the impact of a delayed FIR, the significance of an unproven motive, and the effect of defective investigation (specifically the failure to recover or document an electric bulb used for identification). The Court held that the eyewitnesses were natural and credible, and that the delay in the FIR was justified by the priority given to medical aid. The Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that defective investigation does not invalidate a prosecution case if ocular evidence is reliable. However, the Court modified the sentence, converting the death penalty to life imprisonment because the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive. The judgment reinforces the principle that an unproven motive may mitigate a death sentence to life imprisonment, and that ocular testimony, if credible, remains sufficient for conviction despite investigative lapses.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure by the investigating officer to document or seize a source of light in the site plan invalidate the identification of the accused by eyewitnesses?
  • Can an unproven motive in a murder case serve as a ground for converting a death sentence into life imprisonment?
  • Does defective investigation by the police necessarily lead to the acquittal of the accused if the ocular account is otherwise reliable?
  • Is a witness who is present at the scene of the crime in the ordinary course of events considered a 'chance witness'?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Javed & two others vs Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh & 22022 LHC 3383 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Irfan alias Imran alias Kadu vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 228, 2022 P Cr. L J 1268 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-08
  rapeDNA evidencebenefit of doubtfair trialappreciation of evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the alleged rape of a mentally retarded female. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of conflicting ocular testimony and a DNA report that excluded the appellant as the perpetrator. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt. The Court emphasized that DNA technology serves as a "gold standard" for identification and that a negative DNA report is fatal to the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the Court deprecated the trial court's failure to evaluate the DNA evidence in its judgment, noting that such omission violates the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10-A, Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Establishing that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, highlighting the necessity of assessing all evidence in toto to prevent miscarriages of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does a negative DNA report excluding an accused from the crime scene constitute sufficient grounds for acquittal in a rape case?
  • Is a trial court legally obligated to consider all evidence, including forensic reports, when rendering a judgment?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to evaluate a critical piece of evidence like a DNA report violate the constitutional right to a fair trial?
  • What is the legal threshold for extending the benefit of doubt to an accused in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ali vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 579 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-15
  explosive substancesbenefit of doubtdefense versionillegal detentionwrit petitionappraisal of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and five-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of the appellant under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908, along with forfeiture of property under Section 5-A of the same Act, passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Sargodha. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was apprehended with explosive material, detonators, and a safety fuse. The core legal question was whether the appellant's defense version, supported by documentary evidence, was sufficient to dislodge the prosecution's case and create a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court observed that prior to the registration of the FIR, a writ petition had been filed on behalf of the appellant alleging his illegal detention by law enforcement agencies following his official detention under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960. The Court held that the appellant's continuous confinement made the subsequent recovery of explosives highly improbable. Applying the rule of appraisal of evidence, the Court ruled that if there is a reasonable possibility that the defense version might be true, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a right. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt if there is a reasonable possibility that the defense version put forward might be true?
  • Can a conviction for possession of explosive substances be sustained if documentary evidence establishes that the accused was already in custody or under surveillance prior to the alleged recovery date?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a pre-existing writ petition alleging illegal detention when evaluating a subsequent recovery of contraband by law enforcement agencies?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ali and others vs The State2022 YLR 1097 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-06-11
  murderbenefit of the doubtretracted confessiondelayed FIRmedical and ocular conflictdishonest improvementsidentification paradecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of criminal appeals directed against the conviction and sentence of the appellants under sections 302(b), 337-A(i), 337-L(2), and 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the solitary injured eye-witness, unexplained inordinate delays in lodging the FIR and recording statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the evidentiary value of retracted judicial confessions, and conflicts between medical and ocular evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring material contradictions, dishonest improvements by witnesses, non-compliance with mandatory rules for recording confessional statements, and the absence of an identification parade where the accused were initially unknown. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants of all charges by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of the accused entitles them to an acquittal as a matter of right, and retracted confessions or improved testimonies cannot sustain a conviction when shrouded in mystery and manipulation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and recording statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is fatal to the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of retracted confessional statements that lack material particulars and fail to adhere to statutory formalities under sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal effect of dishonest improvements made by prosecution witnesses to bring their testimonies in line with the medical evidence?
  • Is an identification parade mandatory when the accused were initially unknown to the eye-witness and the complainant at the time of the incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ahmad vs The State and another2022 MLD 911 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-25
  pre-arrest bailmala fidedelayed FIRwrongful confinementrapetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Irfan Ahmad, in a case registered under sections 376 and 342 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of rape and wrongful confinement. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the significant delay in lodging the FIR and the surrounding circumstances. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, observing that the nine-month delay in filing the FIR suggested deliberation and consultation. Furthermore, the complainant had previously appeared before judicial magistrates on multiple occasions without ever mentioning the alleged rape, indicating that the case was likely registered due to subsequent family disputes and at the behest of her parents. The Court affirmed that mala fide intent, a prerequisite for pre-arrest bail, need not be proven by direct evidence but can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, noting that the petitioner had joined the investigation and no recovery was pending.

  Questions settled

  • Can mala fide intent for the purpose of pre-arrest bail be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a case?
  • Is it permissible to touch upon the merits of a case while deciding a pre-arrest bail application?
  • Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR raise a presumption of deliberation and consultation?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ahmad vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 576 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-25
  pre-arrest bailmala fidedelayed FIRmatrimonial disputewrongful confinementrape
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Irfan Ahmad, in a criminal case involving allegations of rape and wrongful confinement. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the significant delay in lodging the FIR and the surrounding circumstances. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, confirming the ad-interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of over nine months, during which the complainant had multiple opportunities to report the alleged offenses to judicial authorities but failed to do so. The Court deduced mala fide from the facts and circumstances, noting that the case appeared to be a result of matrimonial disputes and parental influence. The key principles laid down are that mala fide for pre-arrest bail purposes need not be proven by positive, solid evidence but can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case, and that the merits of a case may be examined at the pre-arrest bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can mala fide for the purpose of pre-arrest bail be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a case?
  • Is it permissible for a court to examine the merits of a case while deciding a pre-arrest bail application?
  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Ahmed vs The State2022 MLD 403 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-01
  pre-arrest bailnon-prosecutionbail cancellationaccused appearanceinterim bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the dismissal of pre-arrest bail applications due to the applicant's persistent failure to appear before the court. The applicant had previously been granted interim pre-arrest bail but failed to attend subsequent hearings, despite receiving a final opportunity to do so. The core legal question addressed is whether an accused person released on interim pre-arrest bail is obligated to attend court on every date of hearing and whether their absence warrants the recall of such bail. The Court held that an accused granted interim pre-arrest bail is strictly required to be present throughout the proceedings. The applicant's failure to appear, despite warnings, necessitates the recall of the interim bail order. The key principle laid down is that the grant of interim pre-arrest bail does not absolve the accused of the responsibility to appear in person before the court on each and every date of hearing, and continued absence justifies the dismissal of bail applications for non-prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused person granted interim pre-arrest bail required to appear in person on every date of hearing?
  • Can an interim pre-arrest bail order be recalled if the accused fails to attend court proceedings?
  • Does the initial appearance of an accused at the time of granting interim bail absolve them from appearing at subsequent hearings?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Ahmed Rajput vs The State and 6 others2022 MLD 1781 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-18Read full judgment →
• International Complex Projects Limited And Others: In the matter of vs Not2022 CLD 282 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-03Read full judgment →
• Intelligence Bureau Employees Cooperative Housing Society thr. its2022 SCP 50, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 340, 2022 SCMR 877, 2022 PSC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-18
  LimitationAcquiescenceOstensible ownerBona fide purchaserInheritance mutationWaiverCivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a dispute over inheritance and subsequent land sales. The respondent challenged a 1970 inheritance mutation in 1990, claiming exclusion from his maternal grandfather’s estate. The appellant society, having purchased the land from the recorded owners in 1986 and 1987, argued the suit was time-barred and that they were protected as bona fide purchasers. The Supreme Court held that the respondent’s failure to challenge the mutation for twenty years, despite attaining majority and residing in the same vicinity, constituted acquiescence and waiver of his rights. The Court found the respondent’s claim of ignorance implausible given the visible development of the land into a housing society. Consequently, the Court ruled that the appellant society, having purchased the land for valuable consideration from the ostensible owners, was entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The judgment reinforces the principle that long-standing inaction and failure to challenge revenue records, coupled with the rights of innocent third-party purchasers, precludes a belated claim to title.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay of twenty years in challenging an inheritance mutation constitute acquiescence and waiver of rights?
  • Can a transferee of land claim protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, when the transferor is an ostensible owner?
  • Does the presumption of truth attached to land revenue records under Section 52 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, protect a bona fide purchaser?
  • Can a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court declaring a law repugnant to Islam affect succession that occurred prior to the date specified in that judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan and Others vs Federation Of Pakistan2022 SHC 502 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-11Read full judgment →
• Inspector General of Police, Quetta and another vs Fida Muhammad and others2022 PLC (C.S.) 1501 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-18
  service tribunalvested rightlocus poenitentiaeprinciples of natural justicecancellation of appointmentcivil servantsdepartmental selection committee
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged a judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal whereby respondents' service appeal was allowed and they were reinstated in government service. The respondents had applied for various vacant BPS-1 posts in the Balochistan Police following a newspaper advertisement, successfully cleared the selection process, and were issued appointment letters upon the recommendation of the Departmental Selection Committee. Subsequently, their appointments were cancelled through an omnibus withdrawal order without a show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing. The core legal question concerned whether the appointments violated Rule 9(6) of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009, regarding local-based appointments, and whether the withdrawal of appointment letters after the creation of vested rights was lawful. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appointments fully complied with the applicable rules and that the authorities could not arbitrarily withdraw appointment letters without observing the principles of natural justice and due process. The Court laid down that once an employee is appointed after fulfilling codal formalities, a vested right is created, and such right cannot be arbitrarily rescinded under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae without proper cause and adherence to natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether appointment letters issued after fulfilling all codal formalities can be withdrawn without a show-cause notice?
  • Does Rule 9(6) of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009 bar the appointment of local residents across districts within the same range?
  • Can low-paid employees be penalized for alleged procedural irregularities committed by the appointing department?
  • What is the scope and application of the doctrine of locus poenitentiae regarding the withdrawal of appointment orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Inspector General Of Police, Balochistan, Quetta and others vs Mohibullah2022 SCMR 9, 2022 PLJ SC 6, 2022 PSC 1427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-02
  service lawdate of birth alterationsuperannuationcivil servantservice recordlimitation periodBalochistan Civil Servants Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a dispute regarding the date of birth of a government employee, an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Balochistan Police. The respondent sought to alter his date of birth in his service record from 20.01.1960 to 20.12.1961, nearly four decades after his initial entry into service, relying on his CNIC. The Balochistan Service Tribunal allowed his appeal, citing the absence of the original Service Book. The Supreme Court examined whether a government employee could alter their recorded date of birth long after joining service. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in law by ignoring the statutory bar. It affirmed that the date of birth recorded at the time of entry into government service is final. Under Rule 11 of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009, any request for alteration due to clerical error must be made within two years of initial entry. Since the respondent failed to adhere to this mandatory limitation, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, upholding the finality of the original service record.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government employee alter their date of birth in the service record after the expiry of two years from the date of joining service?
  • Is the date of birth recorded in the character and service roll at the time of entry into government service considered final?
  • Does the absence of a Service Book before a Service Tribunal justify the alteration of a date of birth contrary to statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Inhabitants of Village Leepa vs District Judge Jhelum Valley/Hattian Bala2022 CLC 1912 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-06-03Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank Limited through Officer Incharge vs Messrs2022 CLD 522 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-12Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank Limited (Formerly Industrial Development2022 CLD 297 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-09Read full judgment →
• Indus Motors Company Limited vs Government of Balochistan, Finance2022 PTD 1226 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-05-23Read full judgment →
• Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Limited vs Senior Civil Judge (West), Islamabad and others2022 CLC 1727 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-19Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah and others vs Station House Officer, Fia Corporate Crime Circle, Islamabad and others2022 P Cr. L J 638 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-23
  quashing of FIRalternate remedyconstitutional petitioncognizancepremature acquittalFederal Investigation Agencyfraudulent allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses three consolidated writ petitions seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, concerning alleged fraudulent plot allotments in the Capital Development Authority. The core legal questions involved whether an FIR can be quashed after the submission of a challan under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whether prior sanction is mandatory under the Federal Investigation Agency (Inquiry and Investigation) Rules 2002, and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when an alternate and efficacious remedy exists. The Islamabad High Court held that once a trial court takes cognizance and a challan is submitted, the FIR cannot be quashed through a constitutional petition, and the accused must instead pursue remedies such as seeking acquittal under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the court reaffirmed that prior executive sanction requirements in investigation rules, found repugnant to Islamic injunctions by the Federal Shariat Court and Supreme Court, ceased to have effect, and extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 cannot be invoked when an alternate statutory remedy is available.

  Questions settled

  • Can an FIR be quashed by the High Court under Article 199 after the challan has been submitted and cognizance taken by the trial court?
  • Whether the requirement of prior sanction under the Federal Investigation Agency (Inquiry and Investigation) Rules 2002 remains legally effective?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an FIR when an alternate and efficacious remedy under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is available before the trial court?
  • Can the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked as a routine matter to bypass statutory forums?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah and others vs SHO, FIA Corporate Crime Circle, Islamabad and others2022 PLJ Islamabad 47 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-23Read full judgment →
• Inayat-ur-Rehman son of Sher Bahadur, r/o Musam Kuroona, District2022 PHC 26, 2022 P Cr. L J 1408 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-03
  jail criminal appealsolitary eyewitnessqatl-e-amdsudden quarrelpremeditationcircumstantial evidenceforensic evidencesentence modification
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution relied on the ocular account of the deceased's widow, supported by medical evidence and forensic reports confirming the recovery of the crime weapon. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of the solitary eyewitness testimony and the classification of the offense. The Court held that the testimony of a solitary eyewitness is sufficient for conviction if it is trustworthy, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by circumstantial evidence, regardless of the witness's relationship to the deceased. The Court found the prosecution's evidence credible and sufficient to establish guilt. However, noting the absence of premeditation and the occurrence of the incident during a sudden quarrel, the Court determined the offense fell within the ambit of section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rather than section 302(b). Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, maintaining the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on the testimony of a solitary eyewitness?
  • Does the relationship between a witness and the deceased automatically render the witness interested and unreliable?
  • How should an offense committed without premeditation in the heat of a sudden quarrel be classified under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the testimony of a solitary eyewitness sufficient to prove a criminal charge if corroborated by circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayat Ullah Memon vs Rejesh Kumar and others2022 IHC 200 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-05Read full judgment →
• Inayat Hussain vs Province of Sindh & Others2022 SHC 140 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-22Read full judgment →
• Inam Shah vs Saddiq Jan2022 PHC 536 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-18Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Total Parco Pakistan Ltd. vs Total Oil Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd2022 SHC 422 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Nutrico Morinaga (Pvt.) Ltd vs Nutrico Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd2022 SHC 24, 2022 CLD 1032 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-15Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Aziz vs State Bank of Pakistan2022 PLC 156 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2019-07-16
  reinstatementjudgment in remabsorption of employeesservice lawback benefitsdefunct institutionnon-litigating parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against the dismissal of a petition by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) regarding the reinstatement of employees of the defunct National Institute of Banking and Finance (NIBAF). Following the dissolution of the Pakistan Banking Council and the transfer of NIBAF to the State Bank of Pakistan, the appellants were absorbed into the State Bank but subsequently terminated. The core legal question was whether the appellants, who were not part of previous successful litigation by their colleagues, were entitled to the same relief of reinstatement based on the same office order that governed their absorption. The NIRC held that the previous judgments of the Supreme Court and Islamabad High Court, which upheld the validity of the absorption office order, constituted a judgment in rem. Consequently, the court ruled that the benefits of the reinstatement must be extended to the appellants, even though they were not parties to the specific earlier litigation. The key principle laid down is that where a judicial determination establishes the vires of an order or regulation, the relief granted is not limited to the litigants but extends to all similarly situated employees.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefits of a judgment declaring an office order valid be extended to employees who were not parties to the original litigation?
  • Does a judgment regarding the vires of a regulation or office order constitute a judgment in rem?
  • Are employees of a defunct institution absorbed into a successor entity entitled to the same terms and conditions of employment as previously held?
  Read full judgment →