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.

• Hamza Yaqoob and others vs The State and others2022 YLR 1924 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-13
  murder referenceidentification paradedacoitycapital punishmentmitigating circumstancesjoint identificationcriminal appealocular account
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the conviction of appellants for murder and robbery. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eye-witness testimony regarding a night-time occurrence, the validity of a joint identification parade, and the applicability of Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (dacoity with murder) where only two participants were proven. The Court held that while the prosecution proved the presence of eye-witnesses and the guilt of the primary appellant, the evidence against the co-appellant was insufficient due to improvements in testimony, leading to his acquittal. Regarding the primary appellant, the Court maintained the murder conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, citing the infliction of a solitary firearm injury and the absence of prior criminal history as mitigating factors. Furthermore, the Court held that Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is inapplicable where fewer than five persons are involved, substituting it with Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Key principles established include that joint identification parades are not strictly prohibited but should be avoided as a rule of prudence, and that Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires the participation of five or more persons.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained if fewer than five persons are involved in the commission of the crime?
  • Does the holding of a joint identification parade for multiple accused render the identification proceedings legally invalid?
  • Is the infliction of a single firearm injury a valid mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can a witness's testimony be relied upon if they have made dishonest improvements to their statement during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamza Yaqoob and others vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1603 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-31
  murder referenceidentification paradedacoitycapital punishmentmitigating circumstancescriminal appealjoint identificationrobbery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the trial court's conviction of two appellants for murder and robbery. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of evidence regarding the appellants' identity, the validity of joint identification parade proceedings, and the legal applicability of Section 396, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, when fewer than five persons are involved. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of one appellant, who was acquitted. Regarding the other appellant, the Court maintained the murder conviction but converted the death sentence to life imprisonment, noting the solitary nature of the firearm injury and the absence of prior criminal history. The Court further ruled that Section 396, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, is inapplicable where fewer than five persons commit the crime, substituting it with convictions under Sections 392 and 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle laid down is that while separate identification parades are preferred as a rule of prudence, joint identification is not inherently illegal if the proceedings are otherwise impeccable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the joint identification of multiple accused in a single parade invalidate the identification proceedings?
  • Can a conviction under Section 396, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, be sustained when fewer than five persons are involved in the commission of the crime?
  • Is the infliction of a solitary firearm injury a mitigating circumstance warranting the conversion of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Does the definition of 'hurt' under Section 332, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, apply when the victim dies from the injury?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamza Sadaqat vs The State and another2022 YLR 1024 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-29
  post-arrest bailmurderabscondencepolice opinionprohibitory clausefurther inquiryalibi
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought post-arrest bail for an accused charged under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the accused was entitled to bail despite being nominated in the FIR with a specific role, having been a fugitive from law, and despite the police opinion in the challan suggesting his absence from the crime scene. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was sufficient material on record to connect the accused to the crime. The Court established that a plea of alibi must be determined by the trial court after evidence is recorded, not at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the police's opinion (ipse dixit) in the challan is not binding, and non-recovery of weapons does not automatically entitle an accused to bail. Crucially, the Court reiterated that unexplained abscondence disentitles an accused to bail, and offences falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, generally preclude bail unless a clear case for further inquiry is established.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of alibi be adjudicated at the bail stage?
  • Is the police opinion in the challan regarding an accused's presence at the crime scene binding on the court during bail proceedings?
  • Does the non-recovery of incriminating weapons entitle an accused to bail?
  • Does unexplained abscondence disentitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Hammad Hassan Mirza, Deputy Project Director (Track Rehabilitation)2022 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 33 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service lawseniority listretrospective applicationservice cadrevested rightsdepartmental promotionadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns service appeals filed under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, challenging a provisional seniority list that relegated the appellants' seniority by integrating Mining Engineers into the Civil Engineering cadre. The core legal questions were whether distinct service cadres could be clubbed for seniority and promotion purposes, and whether administrative notifications could be applied retrospectively to grant ante-dated seniority and promotion. The Tribunal held that the impugned action was illegal, as the two cadres possessed distinct job natures and qualifications, making their integration untenable. Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized that administrative rules and notifications operate prospectively and cannot be applied retrospectively to adversely affect vested rights or past transactions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to restore the appellants' seniority position over the respondent. The judgment reinforces the principle that administrative discretion must be exercised reasonably and that rules cannot be interpreted to create retrospective benefits that infringe upon the accrued status of existing employees.

  Questions settled

  • Can two distinct service cadres with different qualifications and job natures be clubbed together for the purpose of seniority and promotion?
  • Can administrative rules or notifications be applied retrospectively to grant ante-dated seniority and promotion?
  • Does the retrospective application of administrative rules that adversely affect the vested rights of existing employees violate established legal principles?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamid Mukhtar vs Federal Ministry of Energy, etc.2022 LHC 7636 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
• Hamid Ali vs 1st Additional Sessions Judge And Ex-Officio Justice of Peace2022 YLR 1778 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-07
  inherent jurisdictionEx-Officio Justice of Peaceregistration of FIRquashment of orderpolice investigationSection 561-A CrPCcognizable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was brought before the High Court of Sindh by a police official seeking to quash an order dated 5 September 2020 passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Tharparkar at Mithi. By the impugned order, the Justice of Peace had directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) to record the complainant's statement and, if a cognizable offence was made out, to register an FIR under Section 154, Cr.P.C., since the local SHO was himself a proposed accused. The applicant contended that the complaint was fabricated as a counter-blast to criminal cases against the complainant's relatives. The High Court dismissed the application in limine, declining to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A. The Court held that an inquiry into serious allegations of a cognizable offence cannot be thwarted in its infancy, nor can statutory obligations of police authorities to investigate be impeded without compelling grounds showing malice.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash a direction issued by an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to inquire into a cognizable offence?
  • Whether an inquiry into serious allegations against a police officer can be thwarted at the initial stage on technical grounds under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a statutory police authority permitted to be restrained from investigating a complaint where an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace directs the SSP to verify whether a cognizable offence is disclosed?
  Read full judgment →
• Hameedullah vs The State2022 MLD 1701 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-02-11
  narcotics controlcriminal jail appealchain of custodydelayed FIRforensic science laboratorybenefit of doubtacquittalcharas recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9-c of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency and credibility of the prosecution evidence, specifically regarding the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the failure to prove safe custody and transmission of narcotics samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory within the mandated timeframe, and missing links in the chain of custody. The Balochistan High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that unexplained delays in FIR registration and sample transmission, coupled with a broken chain of custody and failure to examine key official witnesses, render the prosecution case doubtful. The court laid down the principle that any reasonable doubt arising in the links of the chain of custody or prosecution story must be resolved in favor of the accused, and statutory timelines for transmitting samples to government analysts must be strictly observed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case in narcotics matters?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to prove the safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory within the prescribed timeframe?
  • Whether the non-examination of the official who transported the samples and the Malkhana incharge breaks the chain of custody resulting in benefit of the doubt to the accused?
  • Is a second criminal appeal maintainable when a criminal jail appeal against the same judgment has already been filed and admitted for regular hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Hameedullah Khan vs Nazir Khan And The State2022 PHC 648 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-13Read full judgment →
• Hameedan Bibi and others vs Manzoor Ul Haq Malik and others2022 MLD 645 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-20Read full judgment →
• Hameed Ullah vs Ali Arshad and another2022 CLC 340 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-25Read full judgment →
• Hameed Ullah Khan vs Additional District Judge, Mianwali and 3 others2022 YLR 2157 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-22Read full judgment →
• Hameed Khan vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1291 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-10
  honour killingfasad-fil-arzcompoundable offencecriminal revisioncompromisejuvenile justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Juvenile Court, Swabi, which refused to allow the petitioner to compound an offence of murder committed in the name of honour. The petitioner, having killed his mother on the pretext of 'ghairat' (honour) while she was under police escort, sought acquittal based on a compromise with the legal heirs. The core legal question was whether an offence committed in the name of honour can be compounded to secure acquittal, notwithstanding a compromise. The Court held that the trial court correctly rejected the compromise. It reasoned that under the amended legal framework, specifically the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the name or pretext of Honour) Act, 2016, offences committed in the name of honour constitute 'fasad-fil-arz'. Consequently, even where legal heirs pardon the offender, the court retains the discretion to impose punishment, and specifically, the law mandates a sentence of life imprisonment for honour killings, rendering the offence non-compoundable in a manner that would result in acquittal. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an offence committed in the name of honour be compounded to secure an acquittal?
  • Does a compromise with legal heirs in an honour killing case exempt the accused from punishment?
  • What is the mandatory punishment for an offence committed in the name of honour under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the court have the discretion to reject a compromise in cases involving fasad-fil-arz?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamdullah vs The State2022 MLD 998 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-13
  post-arrest bailmethamphetamine recoverycontrol of narcotic substancesprohibitory clausetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court by the applicant, Hamdullah, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 6, 7, 8, and 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, concerning the recovery of 3.985 kilograms of methamphetamine. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the huge quantity of narcotics recovered and his alleged identification by staff while booking parcels containing contraband. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant was prima facie connected to the crime, that the bar under section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied due to the gravity of the offence, and that deeper appreciation of evidence is unwarranted at the bail stage. The court laid down the principle that discretion to grant bail should not be exercised liberally in cases involving huge recoveries of contraband, and that section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excludes the application of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted under Section 497 Cr.P.C. when the recovered quantity of narcotics attracts the prohibitory clause?
  • Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 exclude the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding public witnesses for recovery?
  • Is deeper appreciation of evidence permissible while deciding a post-arrest bail application in narcotic cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamayun vs The State etc2022 PHC 232, 2024 YLR 427 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
• Haleem Adil Sheikh vs Election Commission Of Pakistan through Secretary2022 CLC 16 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-28Read full judgment →
• Hakim Bibi etc vs Fateh Muhammad (deceased) through his legal heirs etc2022 LHC 7058 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• Hajran vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 76 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-10
  narcotics controlcharas recoverychemical analysis reportsecondary evidenceloss of original documentcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of charas. The core legal question revolved around the admissibility and proof of the Narcotics Analysis Report when only an attested copy was brought on record as secondary evidence without proving the loss of the original. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the loss of the original report as mandated by Article 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and that the secondary evidence produced did not satisfy the legal requirements of Article 74 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, rendering the report inadmissible in evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a photocopy or copy of a Narcotics Analysis Report be admitted as secondary evidence without proving the loss of the original report?
  • What are the mandatory legal requirements under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, for leading secondary evidence of a lost document?
  • Whether a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 can be sustained in the absence of a legally proved chemical analysis report?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Umar vs Muhammad Farooq Motan and 2 others2022 CLC 1936 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Sher Muhammad & others vs Aftab Ahmad &another2022 PHC 500, 2024 MLD 1143 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Sher Alam and another vs The State & another2022 PHC 74 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-28Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Yunis (deceased) through legal heirs and another vs Mst.2022 SCP 96, 2022 PSC 68, 2022 PLJ SC 389, 2022 SCMR 1282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-17
  sale mutationlimitationoverseas Pakistanisrevenue recorddeclaratory suitfraudpossessionrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a dispute over a 1989 sale mutation of a house in Abbottabad purchased by overseas Pakistanis. The legal heirs of the deceased seller challenged the mutation in 2009, alleging fraud and forgery. The core legal questions concerned the application of the law of limitation to declaratory suits involving revenue entries and the shifting of the burden of proof in challenges to long-standing mutations. The Supreme Court held that under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, a fresh cause of action does not arise with every new Jamabandi entry if the beneficiary has already taken physical possession, as this constitutes an 'actual denial' of rights. The Court found the suit time-barred since the seller lived for 19 years post-mutation without challenging it. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the initial burden to rebut the presumption of regularity under Article 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat and Section 52 of the Land Revenue Act lies with the challenger; only then does the onus shift to the beneficiary. The High Court's reversal of concurrent findings was set aside.

  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad vs The State2022 PHC 102 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-31
  superdaricustody of vehiclenarcotics controlright to be heardconfiscation of vehicleownership claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order of the Special Court (CNS) Peshawar, which dismissed the appellant's petition for the superdari (custody) of a seized Hino Truck. The trial court had denied the request on the grounds that the appellant was not the registered owner and the vehicle was allegedly used in the smuggling of Acetic Anhydride. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in dismissing the superdari petition without providing the appellant an opportunity to be heard regarding his claim of ownership, despite the appellant having appeared during the trial to assert such a claim. The High Court held that the trial court was legally obligated to issue notice to the claimant and provide an opportunity to explain his position before confiscating or denying custody of the vehicle. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision after affording the appellant a proper hearing regarding his ownership claim.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court required to provide a hearing to a claimant of a vehicle before denying a superdari petition?
  • Does the lack of registered ownership automatically bar a person from seeking superdari of a seized vehicle?
  • Can a trial court dismiss a superdari petition without issuing notice to a claimant who has appeared to assert ownership?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad vs Ammer Muhammad and another2022 MLD 536 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-24
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailcriminal proceduremisuse of bailjudicial discretioncross-version case
  Summary & questions settled

  This application sought the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in a case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant contended that the respondent misused the bail concession by threatening witnesses and that the offense was heinous. The core legal question was whether sufficient grounds existed to recall the bail order. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the considerations for granting bail and canceling bail are fundamentally distinct. Bail cancellation constitutes a significant interference with individual liberty and should not be exercised lightly. The Court established that to justify cancellation, the applicant must demonstrate that the original bail order was patently illegal, erroneous, or resulted in a miscarriage of justice, or that the accused has demonstrably misused the concession. As the applicant failed to provide substantive proof of such grounds or show that the initial order was perverse, the Court declined to interfere, affirming that bail should not be recalled on flimsy allegations.

  Questions settled

  • Are the legal considerations for the cancellation of bail identical to those for the grant of bail?
  • What standard of proof is required to justify the cancellation of a previously granted bail order?
  • Does the existence of a cross-version case necessitate a different approach to bail adjudication?
  • Can bail be cancelled solely on the basis of allegations of witness intimidation without substantive proof?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Shafiq vs The Registrar of Companies, Company Law2022 CLD 1402 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-07-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Shafiq vs Registrar of Companies, Company Law Division2022 PLJ Islamabad 160 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haji Muhajereen and 6 others vs Akbar Said and 4 others2022 PLD Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Khan Son of Shah Wali Khan, Nasir Khan Son of Karam Dad, Raja2022 SHC 574 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haji Ibrahim & others vs Abdul Qadir Lakhani & others2022 SHC 316 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-01Read full judgment →
• Haji Haroon vs National Accountability Bureau through its Chairman & 22022 IHC 254 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-29Read full judgment →
• Haji and another vs The State2022 YLR 281 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-20
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtSection 342 CrPCocular evidencemedical evidenceacquittalcontradictory evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for offences under sections 460, 459, 404, and 337-H(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether the trial court adhered to mandatory procedural requirements. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants. The court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed, characterized by significant contradictions in ocular testimony, medical evidence, and the recovery of alleged crime weapons. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove its case, and the identification of the accused was doubtful. A key principle reaffirmed is that the benefit of any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's story must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace. Additionally, the court held that all incriminating evidence, including material arising from cross-examination, must be put to the accused during their statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898; failure to do so precludes reliance on such evidence for conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to put incriminating evidence arising from cross-examination to the accused during a Section 342 statement render that evidence inadmissible?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if there is a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Haider Ali vs The State and another2022 LHC 3006, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1335 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-13
  narcotic drugssingle recoverysentencing policycumulative weightcriminal appealcontraband possessionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the simultaneous possession of heroin and charas. The trial court had convicted the appellant on two separate counts for the respective recoveries. The core legal question was whether the recovery of multiple types of contraband in a single transaction constitutes a single recovery for sentencing purposes under Section 9(c) of the Act, or if separate convictions are warranted. The Court held that the Act does not distinguish between different variants of contraband for sentencing purposes; rather, punishment is determined by the total quantity. Consequently, the recovery of multiple types of contraband in a single transaction must be treated as a single recovery with cumulative weight. The Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision, emphasizing that sentencing discretion remains with the court based on the total quantity and nature of the material. This establishes that multiple contraband recoveries in one transaction are aggregated for sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of multiple types of contraband in a single transaction constitute a single recovery for sentencing purposes under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Does Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 distinguish between different variants of contraband when determining the quantum of punishment?
  • Is an accused liable to be convicted separately for each type of contraband recovered in a single transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiza Bushra Gul vs University of Science & Technology, Bannu through its2022 PHC 564 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hafiz Zubair and another vs Mst. Hazar Naz and 13 Others2022 CLD 1311 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-11-30Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Zubair and another vs Mst. Hazar Naz (Widow) and 13 others2022 PLJ Quetta 124 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-11-30Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Obaidullah vs The State2022 YLR 2070 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-14
  dying declarationretracted confessioncircumstantial evidencecapital punishmentmurder referencejudicial confessioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, sentenced to death by the trial court. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession, the impact of a fourteen-day delay in recording said confession, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct eyewitnesses. The Court held that a retracted judicial confession, if proven voluntary and true, can form the basis of a conviction, especially when corroborated by other evidence like the dying declaration, medical reports, and recovery of the crime weapon. The Court affirmed the conviction but, noting the delay in recording the confession and the single-fire nature of the offense, commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The key principles laid down are that a dying declaration made to a private person is substantive evidence requiring no corroboration, and that a delay in recording a confession does not automatically invalidate it unless coercion or torture is proven.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on a retracted judicial confession if it is found to be voluntary and true?
  • Does a delay in recording a judicial confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically render it inadmissible?
  • Is a dying declaration made to a private person admissible as substantive evidence without corroboration?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment based on the circumstances of the offense despite the conviction being upheld?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Zaman Khan through his legal heirs vs Member Board of Revenue and others2022 LHC 6179 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Owais vs Addl. District Judge, etc2022 LHC 5911, 2024 CLC 577 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-20Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Awais Zafar vs Judge Family Court etc2022 LHC 4594, 2022 PLD Lahore 756, 2022 PLJ Lahore 803 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-10
  blocking of CNICright to identityNADRA Ordinance 2000execution of decreefundamental rightsArticle 9 of the Constitutionimpounding CNIC
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan challenges an executing court's order directing the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) to block/impound a judgment-debtor's Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) to compel his attendance in dower decree execution proceedings. The core legal questions were whether the right to identity is a fundamental right protected under the Constitution, and whether an executing court possesses the jurisdiction to order the blocking or impounding of a citizen's CNIC to enforce attendance. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and declared the impugned order without lawful authority. The Court held that the right to identity is protected under Article 9 (right to life) and Article 14 (dignity of man) of the Constitution. Furthermore, under Section 18 of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000, power to cancel, impound, or block a CNIC resides strictly within the specified statutory grounds, which must be scrupulously adhered to. Executing courts cannot order digital impounding of a CNIC without explicit statutory authorization, as doing so violates Article 175(2) and the rule of law.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right to identity a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does an executing court have jurisdiction to order NADRA to block or impound a person's CNIC to enforce court attendance?
  • Can a citizen's CNIC be cancelled, impounded, or confiscated on grounds other than those enumerated in Section 18 of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafeezullah and 2 others vs Dr. Munir Ahmed and another2022 PLJ Quetta 27 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-25Read full judgment →
• Hafeez-Ur-Rehman Choudhary vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2022 MLD 2066 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-04Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Ahmed & another, Chaudhary Abdul Aziz, The State vs Hafeez2022 LHC 8058 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hadi Ur Rehman vs The State2022 YLR 422 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-06-18
  criminal appealnarcotics recoverydelayed chemical examinationcomplainant as investigatorbenefit of the doubtreduction of sentenceCNSA
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment and conviction order passed by the Special Judge CNSA/Sessions Judge Gilgit, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the recovery of 3500 grams of Chars, unexplained delays in sending samples to the chemical examiner, deficiencies in the chemical examiner's report, and the legality of the complainant himself conducting the investigation. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that serious lapses on the part of the prosecution, including delayed submission of samples, incomplete chemical analysis regarding purified content, and biased investigation where the complainant acted as the investigating officer, created major doubts in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence from five years to two years rigorous imprisonment with the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, alongside a reduced fine. The key principle laid down is that material flaws in the chain of custody, deficient chemical reports, and an investigation conducted by the complainant himself warrant the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused regarding the quantum of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples to the chemical examiner weaken the prosecution case?
  • Can the complainant of a criminal case legally conduct the investigation of the same case?
  • What is the legal effect of a chemical examiner's failure to state the purified quantity of recovered narcotics?
  • Whether the benefit of doubt arising from defective investigation and delayed sample submission warrants a reduction in sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Hadayat Ullah deceased through Legal Heirs etc. vs Province of the Punjab2022 LHC 6571, 2023 PLJ Lahore 391, 2022 [M] CLR 1536, 2023 MLD 2109 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-30Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs The State2022 SHC 584 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-23
  gender-based violencecircumstantial evidencemurder of intimate partnerabscondenceburden of proofinvestigative lapsescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Habibullah, for the murder of his wife under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The core legal question involved the evaluation of a case based purely on circumstantial evidence and gender-based violence, complicated by investigation lapses such as the non-production of the crime weapon and lack of eyewitnesses. The Sindh High Court held that notwithstanding investigative flaws and the absence of direct eyewitness testimony, the prosecution successfully discharged its initial burden of proof through circumstantial evidence—showing a history of marital conflict, the appellant bringing a hammer home, and his prolonged abscondence for seven years. The court laid down the principle that in cases of gender-based violence within private spaces, once the prosecution discharges its initial burden, the onus shifts to the accused to provide a plausible and logical defense, and technical investigative lapses will not vitiate a conviction where the surrounding circumstantial evidence and the absurd defense offered by the accused firmly establish guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-production of the crime weapon in court vitiate a murder conviction when strong circumstantial evidence establishes the guilt of the accused?
  • How does the burden of proof shift in cases of gender-based violence where the crime occurs inside a private bedroom occupied only by the spouses and their children?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct eyewitnesses?
  • What is the legal effect of a prolonged abscondence and an implausible defense statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs State2022 PLJ Quetta 121 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-04-25Read full judgment →
• Habiba Mehboob Ali Khan vs Syed Masood Mehmood & others2022 SHC 272, 2024 CLC 95 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-09Read full judgment →
• Habib Ullah and others vs Chaman and others2022 PHC 176, 2022 PCRLJ 1730 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-31
  illegal dispossessionrestoration of possessioncivil litigation barindependent criminal proceedingsmens rea and actus reusquashment petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses multiple connected petitions arising from orders passed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question involved whether the pendency of long-standing civil litigation between the parties bars criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, and whether restoration of possession through execution is legally sustainable once illegal dispossession is proved up to the Supreme Court. The Peshawar High Court held that civil litigation does not bar criminal proceedings under the Act, and once illegal dispossession is established, the trial court is bound to restore possession to the lawful owner or occupier. The court laid down the principle that civil and criminal remedies are independent, and a person cannot evade penal consequences under the Illegal Dispossession Act on the pretext of pending civil proceedings regarding the same immovable property.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of civil litigation bar criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Can a criminal court order the demarcation of property during proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • What are the prerequisites for invoking Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Whether the restoration of possession to a dispossessed owner is mandatory upon proof of an offence under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Rafiq (Pvt.) Ltd vs Capital Development Authority through its2022 [M] CLR 104 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Habib Carpets (Pvt.) Limited vs Karachi Properties Investment Company2022 MLD 1754 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-15Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Muhammad Ayub Mengal and others2022 CLD 1448 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-07-19Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 CLD 769 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-07
  Banking Mohtasibjurisdictionunauthorized internet banking withdrawaljudicial powersconstitutional petitionmaladministrationbanking disputes
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Habib Bank Limited challenging the orders of the Banking Mohtasib Pakistan and the President's Secretariat, which directed the bank to make good a financial loss suffered by a customer through unauthorized internet banking transactions. The core legal question was whether the Banking Mohtasib possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact, determine civil liabilities, and exercise judicial powers akin to a court. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and set aside the impugned orders, holding that the Banking Mohtasib is an administrative body limited to inquiring into banking malpractices, maladministration, and facilitating amicable resolutions or making recommendations. The court established that the Banking Mohtasib cannot usurp the judicial functions or determine the rights of parties, as the adjudication of civil disputes and enforcement of liabilities are the exclusive prerogative of courts constituted under Article 175 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Banking Mohtasib Pakistan have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact and determine the civil rights or liabilities of parties?
  • Can an administrative body like the Banking Mohtasib exercise the judicial powers of a court established under Article 175 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • What is the extent of the power and authority of the Banking Mohtasib under sections 82-A and 82-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Ayub-ul-Hassan Khokhar and others2022 LHC 7514 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited through Manager vs Muhammad Hussain through Legal Heirs and another2022 CLD 1013 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-23Read full judgment →
• H. Akber Ali & Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division and others2022 PTD 1370 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-12Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad and others vs Muhammad Aslam and others2022 SCMR 1433 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-08-20
  specific performancebona fide purchaseragreement to sellpenalty clauseburden of proofimmovable propertysecond appealdue diligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property. The vendor (Respondent No. 3) entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs but, before the stipulated cut-off date, transferred the land to the appellants via mutation for a higher price. The trial court dismissed the suit, awarding only a refund of earnest money and a penalty, but the first appellate court reversed this, decreeing specific performance. The High Court maintained the decree in a second appeal. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice under Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act and the effect of a penalty clause on specific performance. The Court held that the burden of proof lies on the subsequent vendee to establish good faith and lack of notice through due diligence. It further ruled that under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, a penalty clause does not bar specific performance, as the legal presumption remains that a breach of contract for immovable property cannot be adequately compensated by money. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a penalty clause in an agreement to sell immovable property precludes a decree for specific performance?
  • On whom does the initial burden of proof lie to establish the status of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice under Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act?
  • Can a subsequent vendee be considered a bona fide purchaser if they failed to conduct due diligence or inquiries regarding the vendor's title and existing encumbrances?
  • Does the legal presumption that breach of contract for immovable property cannot be adequately relieved by money still apply if a liquidated damages sum is named in the agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Gull Muhammad vs The State2022 MLD 2071 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-28
  narcotics controlpossession of charas and ICEdelayed transmission of samplessafe custody of samplesquantum of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the possession of charas and ICE, and sentenced to cumulative terms totaling 5 years and 10 months rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the recovery witnesses, the effect of delay in dispatching the sample parcels to the forensic laboratory, the discrepancy in weight due to different measuring scales, and the legality of awarding separate consecutive punishments for multiple types of narcotics recovered in a single transaction. The court held that the prosecution successfully established the recovery of contraband beyond a reasonable doubt, and minor delays or weight discrepancies explained scientifically do not vitiate the conviction. However, the court ruled that separate consecutive punishments for different kinds of narcotics recovered simultaneously are not warranted under the statute, modifying the sentence accordingly. The key principle laid down is that the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 provides for cumulative punishment for total contraband rather than separate fragmented sentences for different types of drugs recovered in the same transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in dispatching sample parcels to the chemical examiner vitiates the prosecution case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can minor weight variations between police recovery and laboratory reports be satisfactorily explained by the use of advanced analytical balance scales?
  • Does the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 warrant separate consecutive punishments for multiple types of narcotics recovered in a single transaction?
  • Whether the prosecution proved the safe custody and unbroken chain of transmission of narcotics samples to the forensic laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Gull Muhammad vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1475 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-28
  narcotic substancespossession of contrabandchemical analysis delaychain of custodysentencing principlescriminal appealforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of charas and ICE. The appellant contended that the prosecution case was doubtful due to a delay in sending samples for chemical analysis, conflicting recovery witness statements, and discrepancies in sample weights between the recovery memo and the forensic report. The Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution's evidence consistent and the chain of custody intact. Regarding the delay in chemical analysis, the Court, citing Supreme Court precedents, held that procedural rule violations do not automatically invalidate a prosecution case if the core evidence of recovery remains credible. The Court also accepted the forensic expert's explanation regarding weight discrepancies due to the use of more precise analytical balances. However, the Court modified the sentence, ruling that the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 does not authorize separate, consecutive sentences for different types of narcotics possessed in a single transaction. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but reduced the cumulative sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in sending narcotic samples for chemical analysis automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Can a trial court impose separate, consecutive sentences for the possession of different types of narcotics in a single transaction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is a discrepancy in weight between the recovery memo and the forensic report sufficient to discredit the prosecution's recovery evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Gull Din vs The State through P.G., Punjab and another2022 SCP 346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-17
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsdelay in analysisdirectory provisionspeedy trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail was brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan to determine whether the petitioner was entitled to bail due to non-compliance with Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, which requires seized narcotics to be dispatched for analysis within seventy-two hours of seizure. In this case, the sample was sent after seventeen days. The Court examined whether the non-compliance with this timeline constitutes a sufficient ground for bail. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that Rule 4(2) is directory rather than mandatory. Applying the principle that non-compliance with a directory rule does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, the Court ruled that this delay alone was not a sufficient ground for granting bail. However, noting the petitioner's grievance regarding trial delays, the Court disposed of the petition with directions to the prosecution to proceed expeditiously without seeking unnecessary adjournments, and instructed the trial court to enforce this commitment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the seventy-two hour timeline for dispatching seized narcotics under Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001 is directory or mandatory?
  • Does the non-compliance with a directory procedural rule regarding the dispatch of seized narcotics automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul-e-Andam vs Chairman WAPDA etc2022 PHC 464 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
• Gul Taj vs The State2022 IHC 220 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-08
  narcotics traffickingsafe custody of sampleschain of custodycomplainant as investigating officerheroin recoverycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court (CNS), Islamabad, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 for trafficking 2500 grams of heroin and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the chain of custody and safe transmission of the samples to the National Institute of Health was maintained, and whether an investigating officer who is also the complainant is legally barred from investigating the case. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody, that minor discrepancies do not vitiate the trial, and that a police officer is not prohibited from being both the complainant and the investigating officer provided no prejudice is caused to the accused. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution must prove an unbroken chain of safe custody for narcotic samples sent for chemical analysis?
  • Can a police officer who acts as the complainant in a narcotics case also competently conduct the investigation?
  • Does minor discrepancy in witness testimonies regarding vehicle descriptions vitiate a narcotics conviction supported by positive chemical reports?
  • Is a bald statement in a Section 342 Cr.P.C. examination sufficient to establish a plea of false implication without supporting defense evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Safaid vs State2022 YLR 1338 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-12-03
  post-arrest bailmurderrule of consistencyabscondenceprohibitory clauserecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, by an accused charged with murder under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency, given that a co-accused had been discharged, and whether the case required further inquiry due to alleged contradictions in witness statements. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, noting that he was directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with a specific role of effective firing, and that the weapon of offense was recovered at his pointation. The Court distinguished the petitioner's case from the co-accused, noting that no recovery was made from the co-accused and that the co-accused was exonerated by witness statements, rendering the rule of consistency inapplicable. Furthermore, the petitioner's four-year abscondence weighed against him. The key principle laid down is that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage, and bail is not warranted where there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed the offense.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply to a co-accused who was discharged due to lack of recovery and witness exoneration?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when directly nominated in a promptly lodged FIR with a specific role of effective firing?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon of offense at the pointation of the accused constitute reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed the offense?
  • Can an accused claim bail based on the rule of consistency if the circumstances of their case differ significantly from the co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Nawab vs The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another2022 SCMR 547, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 85, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-25
  post-arrest bailcross-version FIRfurther inquiryabsconsionmurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Peshawar High Court denying post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a murder case registered under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the existence of a cross-version FIR, the lack of specific attribution of the fatal shot, and the petitioner's nine-year absconsion. The Supreme Court held that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 because both parties had registered FIRs regarding the same incident, indicating a conflict in versions that required trial evidence to resolve. The Court further held that mere absconsion, while relevant, is not an absolute bar to bail and cannot serve as the sole ground for refusal when the case otherwise merits relief. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and granted bail to the petitioner, establishing that where two versions of an occurrence exist, the case warrants further probe, and absconsion does not automatically preclude the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a cross-version FIR regarding the same occurrence justify the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • Can absconsion alone serve as a sufficient ground to deny bail to an accused?
  • Is the registration of a counter-version a mandatory ground for the grant of bail in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs Nusrat Jamal2022 MLD 1767 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-29Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs Jan Momammad and 4 others2022 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 40 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-04-22Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad @ Javed Son of Gulsher Khoso vs The State2022 SHC 254 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-27
  criminal appealrapeDNA evidencebenefit of doubtacquittalinvestigating officer opinionadverse inference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged rape of a minor girl, which resulted in a sentence of fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of conflicting forensic evidence and the investigating officer's findings. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's involvement. Crucially, the DNA report explicitly excluded the appellant as a contributor to the biological samples recovered from the victim. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigating officer had opined in the charge sheet that the appellant did not commit the offense, and the prosecution failed to examine a key witness, leading to an adverse inference under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Relying on the principle 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.

  Questions settled

  • Does a DNA report excluding the accused as a contributor to biological evidence create sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal in a rape case?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for failing to examine a material witness?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt regarding their guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad & others vs Sardar Khan & others2022 SHC 208 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-16Read full judgment →
• Gul Marjan vs Deputy Commissioner Loralai2022 MLD 1151 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-31Read full judgment →
• Gul Ghajan son of Rozi Khan, r/o Maro Khel Alizai, Lower Kurram, District2022 PHC 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-10Read full judgment →
• Gul Faraz vs The Secretary, Cabinet Division, etc2022 IHC 20 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-24Read full judgment →
• Gul Bano vs Shahnaz Bano & others2022 SHC 404 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →
• Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Limited And Others: In the matter of vs Not2022 CLD 180 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-29Read full judgment →
• Gujranwala Electric Power Company (GEPCO) through its Chief Executive2022 PCTLR 579 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal
  seniority listbelated challengetime-barredgrievance petitionlachesvested rightslabour court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Punjab Labour Court No. VII, Gujranwala, which accepted a grievance petition filed by a retired employee regarding the correction of his seniority and placement of his case for promotion. The core legal question involves whether a belated challenge to a seniority list published years prior, and after the employee's retirement, is maintainable and whether the doctrine of laches and limitation bars such a claim. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal held that since the seniority list was repeatedly published and circulated since 1998, and the employee had knowledge of his cadre placement, his challenge after fifteen years was hopelessly time-barred and barred by his own conduct. The Tribunal set aside the Labour Court's judgment, laying down the principle that a person who sleeps on their rights cannot belatedly challenge a settled seniority list after vested rights have accrued to colleagues.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee challenge a seniority list after a lapse of fifteen years from its initial publication?
  • Does the institution of proceedings before a wrong forum constitute a sufficient ground to condone delay under the Limitation Act?
  • Can a belated claim regarding seniority be entertained after the retirement of the employee and when vested rights have accrued to colleagues?
  Read full judgment →
• GuI Zarin S/O Abdul Hakim etc vs Kamal-ud-Din and another2022 SCP 56, 2022 SCMR 1085, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 118, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-09
  MurderConvictionSentence alterationOcular accountWitness testimonyPremeditationSudden occurrenceCriminal petitionAbscondenceRelated witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses criminal petitions challenging a murder conviction and sentence. The core legal questions revolved around the reliability of ocular evidence, the impact of minor contradictions and witness relationships, the distinction between the petitioner and an acquitted co-accused, and the appropriate quantum of punishment. The Supreme Court converted the petitioner's criminal petition into an appeal, partly allowing it. The Court maintained the conviction for murder but altered the sentence from life imprisonment (awarded by the High Court) to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment under Section 302(c) PPC, citing the occurrence taking place at the spur of the moment without premeditation, a single shot fired, and no established motive. The complainant's petition seeking enhancement of the sentence was dismissed. The Court affirmed that consistent ocular accounts from injured witnesses are reliable, even with minor discrepancies after a long abscondence. It reiterated that mere relationship of witnesses with the deceased does not discredit their testimony unless enmity is proven, and distinct roles can justify different outcomes for co-accused.

  Read full judgment →
• Govt. of Pakistan M/Oa Housing & Works through Joint Estate Officer,2022 SCP 288, 2022 SCMR 2073 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-18
  official accommodationallotment cancellationcivil court jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicecivil servantsaccommodation allocation rules
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondent, a civil servant serving in the Income Tax Department, was allotted an official residence in Peshawar. Upon his transfer, the Estate Officer cancelled the allotment under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002. The respondent challenged the cancellation by filing a civil suit, which was decreed in his favour, and concurrent findings were upheld by the appellate court and the High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave, converted the petition into an appeal, and examined whether civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain disputes regarding the allotment or cancellation of official accommodation. The Court held that matters pertaining to official accommodation are connected with the terms and conditions of service, and remedies must be sought before the specialized forums provided under the applicable rules. Consequently, pursuant to Section 23B of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, civil courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes or grant injunctions in respect thereof. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower court judgments and directing the return of the plaint.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit against the cancellation of an official accommodation allotted to a civil servant?
  • Does Section 23B of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 bar civil courts from granting injunctions in respect of decisions taken under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
  • Are disputes regarding the allotment and cancellation of official residences connected with the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and others vs Defence Rays Golf and Country Club and others2022 PSC 639 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-28
  double taxationlegislative competenceeducation cessnon obstante clausefiscal statuteultra vires
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a High Court judgment that declared Section 7 of the Punjab Finance Act, 2011, ultra vires the Constitution on the ground that the education cess imposed on clubs amounted to impermissible double taxation, as clubs were already subject to sales tax on services under the Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, holding that double taxation is not per se unconstitutional if the levy is within the legislative competence of the Province. The Court clarified that the rule against double taxation typically applies within the four corners of a single statute, and even then, clear legislative language overrides it. Furthermore, the Court found that the non obstante clauses in Section 7 of the Punjab Finance Act, 2011, clearly expressed legislative intent to impose the levy. The Court affirmed that the substance of the levy was within the Province's legislative domain and that the High Court erred in striking it down based on the economic burden of double taxation.

  Questions settled

  • Is double taxation per se unconstitutional under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the rule against double taxation apply when levies are imposed under two different statutes?
  • Can a court strike down a fiscal levy solely on the ground that it creates an economic burden of double taxation?
  • Does the presence of a non obstante clause in a charging provision negate arguments against double taxation?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of The Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and others vs Defence Raya Golf and Country Club and others2022 PLD Supreme Court 372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-28
  education cessdouble taxationsales tax on serviceslegislative competenceconstitutional validitynon-obstante clauseprovincial taxation
  Summary & questions settled

  The Province appealed judgments of the Lahore High Court declaring Section 7 of the Punjab Finance Act 2011 ultra vires the Constitution. Section 7 levied an education cess on clubs, which the respondents argued constituted unconstitutional double taxation because services provided by clubs were already subjected to sales tax under the Punjab Sales Tax Ordinance 2000 and the Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act 2012. The High Court struck down the provision on the ground that double taxation was impermissible under the law. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's ruling and allowed the appeals. The Court held that double taxation is not inherently unconstitutional or beyond legislative competence if the subject matter falls within the legislature's domain. There is a strong presumption against double taxation, but where statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the tax must be enforced. Furthermore, economic double taxation across two separate enactments does not render a tax legally invalid, especially given express non-obstante clauses indicating clear legislative intent.

  Questions settled

  • Is double taxation inherently unconstitutional or beyond the legislative competence of a legislature under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the existence of economic or commercial double taxation across separate statutes render a provincial tax levy invalid?
  • How does a non-obstante clause in a fiscal statute affect the presumption against double taxation?
  Read full judgment →
• Government Of Punjab through Secretary Health and 3 others vs Muhammad Kamran Bashir and 6 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 6 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-17
  vested rightwrit of mandamusrecruitment processpublic interestlegitimate expectationadministrative discretionservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal challenged a Single Judge's order that had favored a respondent seeking appointment to a government post. The respondent, having been interviewed for a Health Technician position, argued he possessed a vested right to the appointment despite the government subsequently scrapping the recruitment process in favor of a new, transparent testing mechanism. The core legal question was whether appearing for an interview creates a vested right to appointment enforceable through a writ of mandamus. The Court held that an interview is merely a step in the recruitment process and does not confer a vested right, especially when no merit list was finalized or appointment letter issued. Furthermore, the Court determined that the government's decision to scrap the process in favor of a more transparent system served the public interest and fell within the discretionary authority granted by the relevant notification. The principle laid down is that a candidate has no enforceable legal right to appointment based solely on an interview, and such expectations must yield to public interest and valid administrative policy changes.

  Questions settled

  • Does appearing for an interview for a government post create a vested right to appointment?
  • Can a writ of mandamus be issued to enforce a claim that has not matured into a legal right?
  • Is the government's decision to scrap a recruitment process in favor of a new policy subject to judicial interference if it serves the public interest?
  • What constitutes a 'vested right' in the context of public employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi2022 SCP 144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-16
  land acquisitionSection 48withdrawal from acquisitionpossession of landexecution proceedingscompensation award
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing challenges to execution proceedings regarding land acquisition. The core legal question was whether the Government of Pakistan could invoke Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 to withdraw from the acquisition of land after possession had already been taken and compensation awards had been finalized and upheld by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Government’s power to withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 is not absolute and is explicitly circumscribed by the prerequisite that possession of the land must not have been taken. The Court determined that because the acquisition proceedings were complete, the award was finalized, and possession had long been transferred to the acquiring department, the Government could no longer exercise the power to withdraw. The Court affirmed that the Government cannot retrace its steps to undo a completed acquisition process, thereby dismissing the petitions and refusing leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government withdraw from land acquisition proceedings under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 after possession of the land has been taken?
  • Does the power of the government to withdraw from land acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 remain available after the acquisition proceedings are completed?
  • Is the government's power to withdraw from land acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 absolute?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence, etc vs District Bar Association, Rahim Yar Khan, etc2022 PLJ Lahore 997 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-26Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary Defence and 3 others vs Shaukat Ali and another2022 YLR 1205 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-10Read full judgment →
• Government of KP thr. Secretary Home & TAs and others vs Noorani Gul thr.2022 SCP 138, 2022 SCMR 1428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-15
  land settlementunsettled landescheatproperty rightspossession as evidencerevenue recordfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over land ownership between the Provincial Government and a private individual. Following land settlement proceedings in 1986, the government recorded previously unsettled land in its name. The respondent challenged this entry, asserting ownership based on cultivated possession. The trial court decreed in favor of the respondent, but the appellate court reversed this. The Peshawar High Court subsequently allowed the respondent's revision, restoring the trial court's decree. The core legal question was whether the government could claim ownership of land solely because it was "unsettled" at the time of settlement proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the government's appeal, holding that the government failed to establish its title or demonstrate that the land was acquired through due process or escheat. The Court affirmed that the government cannot claim ownership merely on the basis of land being unsettled. It established that in the absence of documentary records—often due to the government's failure to conduct timely settlement proceedings—proven possession serves as sufficient evidence of ownership, and citizens cannot be deprived of their fundamental constitutional rights to hold property.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government claim ownership of land solely because it was recorded as unsettled during settlement proceedings?
  • Is possession sufficient proof of ownership in the absence of documentary revenue records?
  • What procedure must the government follow to acquire unclaimed or ownerless property under the doctrine of escheat?
  • Does the government's failure to conduct timely settlement proceedings justify depriving citizens of their property rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary, Home2022 PLD Supreme Court 253, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-15
  presidential remissionArticle 45criminal justiceintelligible differentiaheinous crimesconstitutional petitionprison rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions filed by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa challenging Peshawar High Court judgments that granted special remissions to prisoners convicted of heinous crimes, including murder and abduction. The core legal question was whether such convicts were entitled to remissions granted by the President under Article 45 of the Constitution, notwithstanding notifications explicitly excluding them. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting these remissions. The Court ruled that the President’s power to grant clemency does not preclude the government from issuing notifications that create reasonable classifications based on the nature of the offense. By excluding convicts of serious crimes like murder and terrorism, the state acts within its authority to create intelligible differentia, which does not violate the constitutional mandate of equality under Article 25. The Court emphasized that criminal justice objectives, including retribution and deterrence, justify such exclusions. Consequently, the High Court’s judgments were set aside, as the respondents were not entitled to the contested remissions.

  Questions settled

  • Can the President of Pakistan exclude specific categories of convicts from remissions granted under Article 45 of the Constitution?
  • Does the exclusion of convicts of heinous crimes from remission notifications violate the right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Are prison superintendents authorized to grant remissions independently of the criteria set by the government?
  • Can a judicial precedent regarding a conviction for murder be automatically applied to a case involving abduction?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Forest, Peshawar2022 PLC (C.S) 1225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-18
  regularizationcontract employmentproject employeesmaster and servantwrit jurisdictionseparation of powers
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals arose from judgments of the Peshawar High Court which directed the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to reinstate and regularize the services of various contract and project-based employees. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether project employees appointed on a contract basis have a vested right to regularization after the expiration of their projects, and whether employees of entities governed by Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) are subject to the master and servant principle. The Court held that regularization is a policy matter requiring statutory backing, and in its absence, contract employees cannot claim regularization as a matter of right. The Court ruled that project-based employment automatically terminates upon project completion, and courts cannot force the government to adjust such employees against permanent posts without a competitive process. Furthermore, employees of corporate entities under MoUs are governed by the master and servant principle, precluding constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contract employee appointed for a specific project claim regularization as a matter of right after the project has concluded?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under Article 199 of the Constitution to direct the adjustment of contract employees against permanent posts without a competitive recruitment process?
  • Are employees of a corporate entity established under a Memorandum of Understanding governed by the principle of master and servant?
  • Can regularization of service be ordered by a court in the absence of statutory backing, rules, or policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Forest Department2022 PHC 602 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar, etc vs Yousaf Khan, etc2022 PSC 1387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  land acquisitioncompensationreferee courtinterestrental valueshariat appellate bench
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerned the interpretation of the amended Section 28 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The core legal question was whether a Referee Court, when determining the amount to be deposited by the Collector under the amended provision, can award an additional sum (such as interest or rent) over and above the enhanced compensation, following the omission of the 6% interest clause by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001. The appellants argued that the omission of the interest clause, pursuant to Islamic injunctions, barred such awards. The Supreme Court held that the distinction between the 'sum' of compensation and the 'amount' to be determined by the court remains valid. However, modifying its previous ruling in the Misal Khan case, the Court clarified that the additional amount must be characterized as 'rent' rather than 'interest' to align with Islamic jurisprudence. The Court laid down the principle that a Referee Court should award the actual fair market rental value of the land, or in its absence, a minimum of 6% per annum of the enhanced compensation as rental value from the date of possession to actual payment.

  Questions settled

  • How is a Referee Court to determine the amount to be deposited by the Collector under the amended Section 28 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Does the omission of the interest clause in Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 prevent a court from awarding additional sums for delayed payment?
  • Whether the additional sum awarded over and above the enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 should be characterized as interest or rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar2022 SCP 372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  conveyance allowancecivil servantsterms and conditions of serviceservice tribunalsummer and winter vacationsdiscriminatory treatmentfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comprises 76 civil petitions for leave to appeal directed against judgments of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, which allowed respondents' service appeals concerning the discontinuation of their conveyance allowance during summer and winter vacations. The core legal question is whether the Government could lawfully discontinue or deduct the conveyance allowance of teachers during school vacations without any justifying notification or statutory provision. The Supreme Court held that the discontinuation of the conveyance allowance was illegal, discriminatory, and in violation of the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, as vacations count as duty and salary components cannot be varied to the disadvantage of employees. The Court laid down the principles that terms and conditions of service protected by statute cannot be altered to the disadvantage of civil servants, that administrative bodies must act fairly and non-discriminatorily under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution, and that a legal ruling on service matters operates in rem to benefit similarly situated civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conveyance allowance of teachers can be lawfully discontinued or deducted during summer and winter vacations?
  • Does a service tribunal judgment on a point of law relating to terms of service operate in rem for other civil servants not party to the litigation?
  • Whether the discontinuation of a salary component without a statutory provision or notification violates the constitutional rights of civil servants?
  • Whether school vacations count as duty for the purpose of entitlement to emoluments and allowances?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar2022 SCMR 1836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-10
  land acquisitionenhanced compensationReferee Courtrental valueinterestKhyber Pakhtunkhwa
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed how a Referee Court should determine the amount to be deposited by the Collector under the amended provisions of section 28 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Acquisition Act 1894, specifically whether such an amount includes rent or interest. The appellant argued that the statutory omission of the interest clause in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa via the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Ordinance 2001 precluded the award of 6% interest on enhanced compensation. The Court examined precedents including the Misal Khan case and the Aslam Khaki case, noting that the 2001 amendment aimed to align the law with Islamic injunctions by replacing traditional interest with a rental value concept to compensate landowners for delayed payment. The Supreme Court modified the interpretation given in Misal Khan, holding that under amended section 28, a Referee Court should add the actual fair market rental value or, in the absence of evidence, 6% per annum of the enhanced compensation as minimum rent from the date of possession until actual payment. The appeals were consequently dismissed, maintaining the awarded 6% per annum sum designated as rent rather than interest.

  Questions settled

  • How is a Referee Court to determine the amount to be deposited by the Collector under the amended provisions of section 28 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Does the term 'amount' in amended section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 include interest or rent for the period of deprivation of land possession?
  • Can a Referee Court award a fair market rental value or a minimum percentage as rent on enhanced compensation when the statutory interest clause has been omitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others vs Intizar Ali and others2022 PLC (C.S.) 837, 2022 SCMR 472, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 245, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-28
  sacked employeesreinstatementregularizationad-hoc employeesstatutory interpretationultra viresservice lawmandatory provision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from several appeals filed by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa against judgments of the Peshawar High Court and the Service Tribunal, which had ordered the reinstatement of various employees under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012. The core legal question was whether the respondents met the statutory eligibility criteria for reinstatement, specifically regarding their status as regular employees, possession of requisite qualifications at the time of appointment, and adherence to the mandatory 30-day application window under Section 7 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the Act was intended strictly for regular employees and not for those on temporary, ad-hoc, or contract bases. The Court emphasized that temporary employees have no vested right to regularization. Furthermore, the Court noted that the federal equivalent of this legislation had already been declared ultra vires the Constitution. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the reinstatements, except for one respondent who proved regular status and timely application. The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory benefits must be strictly construed according to the legislature's intent and mandatory procedural requirements.

  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Civil2022 PLC (C.S.) 1481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-16
  service appealantedated promotionvested rightseniority cum fitnessfresh cause of actionarbitrary exercise of authorityfrivolous appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a service matter where the respondent, a Soil Conservation Inspector (BPS-11), was denied promotion to Soil Conservation Assistant (BPS-17) upon the retirement of the incumbent on 12th May 2015, despite being the senior-most eligible candidate. After successfully challenging the initial denial before the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, the department promoted the respondent on 29th May 2018 with immediate effect rather than from the date the vacancy arose. The respondent filed a second service appeal before the Tribunal, which directed antedated promotion from 12th May 2015, prompting the department's appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned whether the second service appeal was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Rule 23 of the KPK Service Tribunal Rules 1974, and whether an employee wrongfully delayed promotion is entitled to antedated promotion. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent promotion order with immediate effect gave rise to a fresh cause of action, rendering the bar inapplicable, and that an employee blamelessly delayed by department inaction is entitled to promotion from the date the vacancy occurred. The court dismissed the appeal as meritless, denouncing the department's conduct as arbitrary and frivolous.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second service appeal claiming antedated promotion from the date a vacancy arose is barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Rule 23 of the KPK Service Tribunal Rules 1974 when a prior appeal only addressed the general refusal to promote?
  • Does an eligible civil servant wrongfully denied promotion due to departmental delay acquire a vested right to be promoted from the date the post fell vacant?
  • Does the issuance of a promotion order with immediate effect, following a tribunal's remand, constitute a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Civil2022 SCMR 1765 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-16
  antedated promotionvested rightservice appealdepartmental delaysubsequent appealarbitrary exercise of authorityseniority cum fitness
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondent, an employee of the Agriculture, Livestock and Cooperative Department, sought promotion as Soil Conservation Assistant (BPS-17) after becoming the senior-most eligible candidate following a retirement. Although a vacancy arose on 12th May 2015, the department delayed consideration and later granted promotion only with immediate effect from 29th May 2018 rather than from the date the post fell vacant. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal accepted the respondent's second service appeal and directed antedated promotion from the date of the vacancy. The Supreme Court dismissed the department's appeal, holding that an employee who is unjustly denied promotion due to departmental delay is entitled to promotion from the date the vacancy occurred and that a subsequent service appeal seeking consequential relief is not barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or Rule 23 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal Rules 1974. The Court laid down that arbitrary withholding of a vested right to promotion does not extinguish the employee's claim to retrospective effect upon correction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee is entitled to promotion from the date a vacancy occurs when the promotion was wrongfully delayed by the department?
  • Is a second service appeal claiming retrospective promotion barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or Rule 23 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal Rules 1974?
  • Does the implementation of a tribunal's direction for promotion with immediate effect extinguish an employee's claim to an antedated promotion from the date of the vacancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary Khyber2022 SCP 294, 2022 SCMR 2114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-06
  service lawcompulsory retirementmisconductservice tribunal jurisdictionunauthorized absencepenalty modificationcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged a judgment of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, which had modified a civil servant's penalty of compulsory retirement to a reduction in rank. The respondent, a government servant, had been penalized by the competent authority for unauthorized frequent foreign travel without obtaining the mandatory No Objection Certificate (NOC) and for prolonged unauthorized absence. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, was justified in modifying the penalty imposed by the competent authority despite finding the respondent guilty of the misconduct. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's interference was unjustified and arbitrary. The Court ruled that while the Tribunal possesses the power to modify penalties under the Service Tribunals Act 1973, such power is not unbridled or discretionary; it must be exercised with circumspection, recording cogent and legally sustainable reasons. Because the Tribunal failed to provide a valid justification for its leniency despite acknowledging the gravity of the proven misconduct, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and restored the penalty of compulsory retirement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal have the authority to modify a penalty imposed by a competent authority on a civil servant?
  • Is the power of the Service Tribunal to modify penalties under the Service Tribunals Act 1973 discretionary and unbridled?
  • What criteria must the Service Tribunal satisfy when modifying a disciplinary penalty imposed by a departmental authority?
  • Can a Service Tribunal modify a penalty without recording cogent and legally sustainable reasons for doing so?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others2022 PSC 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-22
  service lawregularization of servicesproject employeescontractual appointmentstatutory interpretationjudicial restrainttermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that ordered the regularization of a project employee. The core legal question was whether a project employee, whose post was converted to the regular budget after the cut-off date of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Regularization of Services Act, 2009, was eligible for regularization, and whether such employment was contingent upon the project's lifespan. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting regularization. The Court determined that the 2009 Act explicitly excludes project employees from its purview, and the respondent's appointment was governed by policy terms stipulating automatic termination upon project completion or conversion to the regular budget. The Court emphasized that judicial sympathy cannot override the clear letter of the law. The key principle laid down is that courts must strictly adhere to statutory cut-off dates and express contractual terms governing project-based employment, and cannot extend the scope of regularization statutes to include categories of employees—such as project staff—that the legislature has expressly excluded.

  Questions settled

  • Are project employees eligible for regularization under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Regularization of Services Act 2009 if their posts were converted to the regular budget after the Act's cut-off date?
  • Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Regularization of Services Act 2009 include or exclude project employees from its regularization benefits?
  • Do project employees have a vested right to regularization upon the conversion of project posts into regular budgetary posts?
  • Can a court grant regularization on sympathetic grounds when the governing statute and appointment terms expressly exclude such relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary & others vs Jehanzeb Khan deceased through legal heirs & others2022 PHC 598 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Gohar Aman vs Shah Nazim2022 MLD 1583 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-11-18Read full judgment →
• Gilgit-Baltistan Policy Institute (Gbpi) through Chief Executive Officer and Another vs Government of Gilgit-Baltistan through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit and 4 Others2022 MLD 1973 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-10-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Yasin vs The State, etc2022 LHC 4500 · Lahore High Court
  murderdeath sentence commutationacquittal of co-accuseddoctrine of abundant cautionmedical evidencedelayed FIRfirearm recoverymotivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses multiple connected matters arising from a trial court judgment regarding a criminal case involving murder, attempt to murder, and hurt. The appellant, Ghulam Yasin, along with co-accused, faced trial for offences under sections 302, 324, 337-F(i), 337-L(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a land dispute resulting in one death and multiple injuries. The trial court acquitted five co-accused but convicted Ghulam Yasin under section 302(b) PPC, sentencing him to death, alongside convictions under sections 324, 337-F(iii), and 337-F(i) PPC, and section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon cross-appeals, a criminal revision, and a murder reference, the High Court evaluated the ocular, medical, and recovery evidence. The court held that the acquittal of co-accused out of abundant caution did not impair the prosecution's case against the appellant, whose specific firearm attribution, corroborating medical evidence, positive forensic report, and established motive proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. However, considering the mitigating circumstance arising from the acquittal of co-accused, the High Court upheld the conviction under section 302(b) PPC but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the concurrent sentences for other offences.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused out of abundant caution adversely impact the prosecution's case against the remaining convicted accused?
  • Can delay in lodging the First Information Report be ignored if the injured witnesses are examined promptly and the testimony is found trustworthy?
  • Whether death occurring weeks after sustaining firearm injuries due to septic shock severs the causal link between the gunshot wound and the death so as to absolve the accused of murder?
  • Is a dying declaration recorded during investigation admissible as a substantive piece of evidence without formal corroboration?
  • Can the sentence of death be altered to imprisonment for life when co-accused attributed general roles stand acquitted on similar evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Siddique vs Additional Sessions Judge, etc2022 PLJ Lahore 898 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs Justice Of Peace, etc2022 PLJ Lahore 315 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir Alias Shaboo vs The State and another2022 MLD 1805 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-04
  narcotic substancesSection 342 Cr.P.C.criminal appealexamination of accusedincriminating evidencevitiation of trialacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 1500 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s failure to confront the accused with incriminating evidence, specifically the recovered narcotic substance, during his examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, vitiated the conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court’s failure to put vital incriminating evidence to the accused during his examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, constituted a serious illegality rather than a mere irregularity. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of doubt. The judgment establishes the principle that the examination of an accused under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a mandatory duty of the trial court, not a mere formality. Any piece of prosecution evidence not confronted to the accused during this examination cannot be legally used to sustain a conviction or sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can prosecution evidence that was not confronted to the accused during their examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to maintain a conviction?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to confront an accused with incriminating material during their examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a mere irregularity or a fatal illegality?
  • Is the statement of an accused under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a mere formality or a mandatory requirement to ensure a fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir & others, Altaf Hussain Khuhro & others, Noor Hassan &2022 SHC 558 · Sindh High Court
  civil servantstransfer and postingterms and conditions of serviceservice tribunalconstitutional jurisdictioninland revenue departmentjurisdiction bar
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions filed by officers of the Audit Cadre in the Inland Revenue Department impugning a letter and a notification issued by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) restricting their postings as Unit In-charge in field formations and preventing them from being assigned assessment-related functions. The core legal questions relate to the maintainability of writ petitions concerning civil servants' transfers and postings in light of the constitutional bar under Article 212, and whether FBR's administrative decision regarding job assignments is ultra vires. The court held that matters of transfer and posting pertain to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, making the constitutional petitions incompetent and barred under Article 212 of the Constitution, with the appropriate remedy lying before the Service Tribunal. Furthermore, on merits, civil servants have no vested right to claim postings or assignments to specific positions of their choice. The petitions were consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution apply to writ petitions challenging transfer and posting orders of civil servants?
  • Do civil servants have a vested right to claim a specific posting or assignment to field formations and assessment-related duties?
  • Whether the Federal Board of Revenue has the administrative authority to restrict audit cadre officers from being assigned assessment-related functions and duties?
  Read full judgment →