Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Baz Muhammad Kakar vs Syed Abdul Rasheed and another2022 MLD 516 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-10Read full judgment →
- Bashir Muhammad Khan vs The State2022 SCP 40, 2022 SCMR 986, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 232, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302(b) PPC, where the appellant was initially sentenced to death by the Trial Court, later commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court. The prosecution's case rested on an ocular account provided by witnesses who were not present at the time of the FIR's lodging and who subsequently resiled from their initial statements to exonerate two co-accused. The Supreme Court observed that the complainant was not an eyewitness and the primary witnesses (PW-9 and PW-10) provided inconsistent testimony. Furthermore, the forensic report confirmed that the recovered weapon did not match the crime empties, and the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account regarding entry and exit wounds. The Court held that the delayed recording of statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. without plausible explanation reduces their evidentiary value to nil. Applying the principle that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right, the Court acquitted the appellant.
- Bashir Masih vs Suneela Nadeem, Etc2022 LHC 3442, 2024 CLC 863 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-29Read full judgment →
- Bashir Bughio and others vs The State2022 MLD 1405 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder and sentencing them to death and imprisonment for life, alongside a confirmation reference. The core legal question was whether a defective charge and a casual examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 caused prejudice to the accused, vitiating the trial. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court failed to frame charges containing material particulars regarding the specific roles of individual accused, thereby misleading them in their defence and causing serious prejudice. The court set aside the convictions and sentences, answered the confirmation reference in the negative, and remanded the case back to the trial court for a re-trial starting from the framing of a fresh, lawful charge. The key principle laid down is that a defective charge omitting material particulars of the offence and individual roles causes prejudice to the accused, warranting the setting aside of the conviction and a remand for retrial.
Questions settled- Does a defective charge that omits specific allegations against individual accused cause prejudice requiring a remand?
- Whether the failure to put incriminating pieces of evidence to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the trial?
- Can an appellate court set aside a conviction and remand a criminal case for retrial due to errors in framing the charge?
- Bashir Ahmed etc vs The State etc2022 PSC (Crl.) 375 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan involved criminal petitions against conviction for theft and murder, as well as an application for enhancement of sentence. The core legal question revolved around whether the courts below were justified in convicting the accused based on individual liability in the absence of a clear finding regarding common intention or common object under Sections 34, 148, or 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. By a majority of two to one, the court set aside the judgments of both the trial court and the high court, converting the petitions into appeals and remanding the matter back to the trial court to rewrite the judgment with specific findings on common intention or common object. The key principle laid down is that trial courts must explicitly evaluate and record a definite finding on the existence of common intention or common object when framing charges and delivering judgments in multi-accused murder trials, rather than defaulting to individual liability without addressing vicarious liability aspects.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court is legally bound to record a definite finding on common intention or common object under Section 34 or Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Can an appellate court remand a criminal case back to the trial court for a fresh judgment when the lower courts failed to determine the applicability of vicarious liability?
- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime automatically attract the provisions of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Whether Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code applies when an offence is determined to be the result of individual liability rather than common intention or common object?
- Bashir Ahmed Badini, D&SJ, Dera Allah Yar and others vs Hon'ble Chairman2022 SCMR 448, 2022 PSC 1448, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals arose from a common judgment of the Balochistan Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal concerning the inter-se seniority and antedated promotions of various judicial officers. The core legal questions involved whether ad-hoc service could be counted toward seniority, the validity of antedated promotions granted to regularize seniority gaps caused by administrative delays, and the binding nature of a 'judgment in rem'. The Supreme Court held that seniority must be reckoned from the date of regular appointment and that ad-hoc service, being a temporary stop-gap arrangement, does not confer vested rights for seniority or promotion. The Court affirmed that antedated promotions are permissible to rectify anomalies where Departmental Promotion Committee meetings are delayed, provided eligibility and fitness are established. Furthermore, the Court applied the doctrine of merger and the principle of 'judgment in rem', ruling that the Tribunal's earlier affirmed decisions were binding on all similarly situated officers. The appeals were dismissed as the appellants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice, asserting only premature apprehensions regarding future seniority lists.
- Bashir Ahmed and others vs The State and another2022 SCMR 1187, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from cross-petitions filed by convicts against their convictions and by the complainant for sentence enhancement. The case originated from a water theft dispute leading to non-fatal injuries and the fatal shooting of the complainant's brother. The Trial Court had convicted the primary accused under Section 302(b) PPC and a co-accused under individual hurt provisions, while acquitting others, finding no common intention; this was largely upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions pertained to the framing of charges and recording of findings regarding common intention (Section 34 PPC) or common object (Sections 148/149 PPC) in murder trials, and whether individual criminal liability could be assigned without explicit findings disproving joint action. By a majority decision, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of both lower courts and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for re-writing the judgment. The majority issued binding procedural guidelines requiring trial courts to explicitly evaluate and record findings on common intention or common object at the stages of charge framing and judgment.
Questions settled- Must a trial court record explicit judicial findings on common intention under Section 34 PPC or common object under Section 149 PPC when deciding a murder case involving multiple accused?
- When can individual liability under Section 302(c) PPC be applied to co-accused in place of joint liability under Section 302(b) PPC?
- What criteria and procedures govern the application of qisas under Section 302(a) PPC and Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, including tazkiya-tul-shahood?
- What essential elements must be established to invoke the legal defense of sudden provocation under Section 302(c) PPC?
- Bashir Ahmad vs Shahid Nadeem2022 MLD 1955 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-01Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs Khadim Hussain and others2022 CLC 1300 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-16Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad (deceased) through L.Rs vs Muhammad Amin Akhtar and another2022 LHC 2520 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Bashed alias Chand, etc vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 24 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and capital sentence reference arose from the murder of a judicial officer. The appellants were convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court for murder and terrorism-related offenses. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony from related witnesses, the validity of identification parade proceedings, and the admissibility of retracted judicial confessions. The Lahore High Court upheld the convictions, finding the prosecution's evidence—specifically the judicial confessions, identification parade, and forensic reports—sufficient to establish guilt. However, the Court exercised judicial discretion regarding sentencing. While confirming the death sentence for the appellant who fired the fatal shot, the Court converted the death sentences of the other two appellants to life imprisonment, citing their presence without active participation in the firing as a mitigating circumstance. The judgment reaffirms that testimony of related witnesses is admissible if credible, and that retracted judicial confessions, if voluntary and corroborated by other evidence, can sustain a conviction. Additionally, it emphasizes that strict adherence to identification parade protocols is essential for the reliability of such evidence in criminal trials.
Questions settled- Can a retracted judicial confession form the basis of a conviction if it is found to be voluntary and truthful?
- Does the mere relationship of an eyewitness to the deceased render their testimony unreliable?
- Is the presence of an accused at the crime scene without firing the fatal shot a valid mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Does the murder of a public servant in relation to their official duties constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
- Basharat Ali, etc vs Muhammad Arif, etc2022 LHC 6944 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
- Basharat Ali vs The State, etc2022 LHC 3878 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a second application filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the applicant Basharat Ali, seeking suspension of his execution of sentence of life imprisonment awarded under a private complaint arising out of FIR No. 439 of 2015. The core legal questions involved whether the sentence of a juvenile convict can be suspended on merits without pointing out legal infirmities, and whether the statutory ground for bail during trial under Section 6(5) of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 can be extended for suspension of sentence during appeal, or whether recourse must be had to Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that no case for suspension on merits was made out as medical evidence corroborated ocular testimony, and that the statutory two-year delay period under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to juvenile convicts seeking suspension of sentence during appeal, as trial provisions cannot be read into appeal stages. The key principle laid down is that courts cannot read unprovided provisions into statutes, and juvenile convicts must rely on the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for suspension of sentence during appeal.
Questions settled- Can a court read into a statute a provision for suspension of sentence that the legislature has omitted?
- Does Section 6(5) of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 apply to the suspension of execution of sentence during the pendency of an appeal?
- What is the applicable statutory period of delay for considering the suspension of sentence of a juvenile convict whose appeal is pending before the High Court?
- Whether the opinion of the police favoring an accused in a private complaint overrides a judicial verdict of guilt recorded by the trial court?
- Basharat Ali vs The State through Prosecutor General Punjab and another2022 SCMR 267, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 737 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, against an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing his bail plea in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail based on a subsequent police investigation report finding him innocent, despite being nominated with a specific firearm role in the initial investigation and medical report. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to make out a case for enlargement on bail and dismissed the petition. The key principles laid down are that a subsequent favourable police opinion does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, especially when earlier bail was refused on merits, police ipse dixit is not binding, and each criminal case must be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail solely on the basis of a subsequent police investigation report declaring him innocent?
- Is the opinion of an investigating officer binding on the court during a bail application?
- Whether a successive bail application can be founded on grounds already known to the accused during an earlier round of litigation?
- Basharat Ali vs Subedar Khan and 2 others2022 CLC 2126 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-20Read full judgment →
- Barrister Adnan Nawaz Khan, Advocate Supreme Court of Azad Jammu2022 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 33 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Barrister Adnan Nawaz Khan, Advocate Supreme Court of Azad Jammu &2022 PLJ AJ&K 83 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Barrister Adnan Nawaz Khan, Advocate Supreme Court of Azad Jammu &2022 PLJ AJ&K 131 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Bankers Equity Limited through Official Liquidator vs Bank Al-Falah Limited2022 CLD 1478 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Banking Court judgment and decree that held the appellant jointly and severally liable for a short-term finance facility extended by the respondent bank to a third party. The core legal question was whether the appellant, having exchanged correspondence with the bank regarding bridge finance, could be legally classified as a "customer" or "guarantor" under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, despite not executing any formal guarantee or mortgage deed. The High Court held that the Banking Court erred in its assessment. The Court ruled that the mere exchange of correspondence or "no objection" letters, without the execution of formal legal instruments, does not establish a relationship of financial institution and customer. Consequently, the appellant could not be held liable for the borrower's default. The judgment establishes the principle that banking jurisdiction under the Ordinance requires a formal, legally binding relationship; correspondence alone, absent a formal guarantee or mortgage, is insufficient to impose liability on a third party for a borrower's debt.
Questions settled- Can a party be held liable as a guarantor under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, based solely on correspondence without a formal guarantee deed?
- Does the exchange of 'no objection' letters regarding bridge finance create a customer relationship between a financial institution and a third party?
- Is a suit under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, maintainable against a party that has neither availed a finance facility nor executed a formal guarantee or mortgage?
- Bakhtiyar Alam vs The State2022 IHC 114 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 9(c) and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after his earlier bail application was dismissed by the Special Court. The prosecution alleged that 12 kilograms of opium was recovered from the trunk of a vehicle on the identification of the petitioner and his co-accused, who was sitting on the front seat. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was prima facie connected to the commission of the offence and entitled to post-arrest bail given the large quantity of narcotics recovered. The Islamabad High Court held that a deeper appreciation of the record is not permissible at the bail stage and that the recovery of narcotics on the petitioner's identification indicated conscious knowledge, prima facie connecting him to the offence. The court ruled that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, read with Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and accordingly dismissed the bail petition.
Questions settled- Is a deeper appreciation of the record permissible at the bail stage?
- Does the recovery of narcotics on the identification of an accused indicate conscious knowledge for the purpose of bail?
- Does an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Bakhtawar Bibi vs Additional District Judge & two others2022 LHC 7466 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-31Read full judgment →
- Bakht Alam Khan vs Waseem Khan & others2022 PHC 600 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-04Read full judgment →
- Bakhsha (deceased) through legal heirs etc vs Sh. Qadir Bakhsh2022 LHC 3232, 2024 YLR 482 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-21Read full judgment →
- Bakhmal Shehzad vs Nazeer Ahmed and 3 others2022 YLR 1501 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the Sessions Judge, Diamer, in a case involving murder and abetment. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in granting bail to the principal accused based on the rule of consistency, despite his direct implication in a promptly lodged FIR and the recovery of the weapon of offence. The Court held that the bail granted to the principal accused, Nazeer Ahmed, was unjustified because his case was distinguishable from a co-accused who had been discharged due to lack of recovery. The Court emphasized that the rule of consistency does not apply when the roles of the accused are materially different. Consequently, the Court cancelled the bail of the principal accused but dismissed the petition regarding the co-accused charged with abetment, finding insufficient evidence to connect them to the offence at that stage. The judgment reaffirms that bail should not be granted when an accused is prima facie connected to an offence falling within the prohibitory clause.
Questions settled- Does the rule of consistency apply to a co-accused when the principal accused is found in possession of the weapon of offence?
- Can bail be cancelled for an accused charged with an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a trial court's grant of bail liable to be set aside if it ignores the distinction between the roles of co-accused?
- Baka Ullah Khan Samoo vs Province of Sindh through Home Department2022 PLD Sindh 308 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-28Read full judgment →
- Bahria Town Private Limited vs District Consumer Court and others2022 PLJ Lahore 199, 2022 PLD Lahore 488 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by Bahria Town (Pvt.) Limited challenging an order of the District Consumer Court, Rawalpindi, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 35 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 read with Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding the maintainability of a complaint concerning the non-delivery of possession of plots. The core legal question was whether a dispute relating to the purchase of immovable property and the non-delivery of its possession falls within the jurisdiction of a Consumer Court as a matter of 'services' or 'products'. The Lahore High Court held that land and immovable property do not constitute a 'product' under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, nor does a pure sale-purchase agreement of plots amount to the hiring of 'services' under the Act. Consequently, the court ruled that disputes arising from the breach of contractual obligations regarding immovable property fall outside the domain of Consumer Courts, and complainants must instead approach a court of competent civil jurisdiction. The petition was accepted and the consumer complaint was rejected.
Questions settled- Whether the purchase of immovable property or plots falls within the definition of a 'product' under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005?
- Does a dispute concerning the non-delivery of possession of plots constitute the hiring of 'services' under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005?
- Does a District Consumer Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon matters arising from the breach of contractual obligations regarding the sale and purchase of land?
- Can a complaint regarding the non-fulfillment of a contract for immovable property be maintained before a Consumer Court under Section 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005?
- Bahawalpur Medical And Dental College vs Pakistan Medical Commission2022 CLC 775, 2022 PLJ Lahore 587 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-08Read full judgment →
- Bahadur Khan vs Karim Gul and 4 others2022 PLD Balochistan 51 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-10-21Read full judgment →
- Badshah Zamin & others vs Siraj Khan & others2022 SCP 158, 2022 PSC 1506, 2022 PLJ SC 326, 2022 P LC (C.S.) 1533, 2022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service matter concerns the determination of seniority between employees regularized under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, and candidates recommended by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission (KPPSC). The core legal question was whether candidates recommended in subsequent batches after the Act's commencement are entitled to seniority over regularized employees, given that the initial batch of these candidates was recommended prior to the Act. The Supreme Court held that the impugned seniority list was correct and the Service Tribunal erred in reversing it. The Court established the principle that where the KPPSC recommends candidates in staggered batches due to administrative necessity, the date of the first recommendation is deemed the date of recommendation for the entire group. Consequently, all candidates in such a process are considered recommended before the Act's commencement, granting them seniority over those regularized under the Act. The Court emphasized that administrative delays in processing large volumes of candidates should not prejudice the seniority rights of the appointees, as the process effectively commenced before the legislative cutoff.
Questions settled- Does the seniority protection under Section 4 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 apply to all candidates in a recruitment process if the first batch was recommended before the Act's commencement?
- How is the date of recommendation determined for candidates recommended in staggered batches by the Public Service Commission?
- Are employees regularized under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 junior to those recommended by the Public Service Commission before the Act's commencement?
- Badar-Ud-Din vs The State2022 MLD 1346 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a murder and firearm injury incident. The core legal question revolved around whether the ocular testimony of related and injured eyewitnesses, supported by medical evidence and corroborative forensic recoveries, was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt despite general attribution of roles. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case through consistent, confidence-inspiring ocular accounts and reliable corroborative evidence, and that the principle of constructive liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applied where multiple armed assailants acted in furtherance of a common intention. The court dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related and injured eyewitnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration if found to be truthful and confidence-inspiring?
- Does the general attribution of firing by multiple accused persons negate a conviction when supported by consistent medical evidence and weapon recoveries?
- What constitutes constructive liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in cases involving multiple armed assailants?
- Does a delay in recording the statement of an injured witness due to unconsciousness render their testimony doubtful?
- Badar Zaman vs The State2022 YLR 1564 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court, which convicted the appellant under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of the weapon and the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon re-evaluating the evidence, the Sindh High Court found significant discrepancies in the prosecution's case. Specifically, the testimony of the complainant and the mashir regarding the circumstances of the arrest and the location of the weapon recovery were contradictory. The mashir’s testimony regarding his arrival at the scene differed from the complainant's account, and the location of the weapon recovery was inconsistently described. The Court held that these contradictions undermined the reliability of the prosecution's evidence. Emphasizing the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, ruling that the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof.
Questions settled- Does a contradiction between the complainant and the mashir regarding the location of a weapon recovery create reasonable doubt?
- Is the accused entitled to acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to produce consistent evidence regarding the arrest of the accused warrant an acquittal?
- Badar Expo Solutions through Managing Director vs Federation of Pakistan2022 PLD Sindh 336 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-14Read full judgment →
- Bachando s/o Aghedino by caste Keerio vs The State2022 SHC 238 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 2000 grams of charas. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution established the safe custody and transmission of the recovered narcotics and whether the conviction could be sustained given the lack of independent witnesses and material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody, specifically noting a five-day delay in sending samples to the Chemical Examiner without explanation, and observed that the police failed to associate independent witnesses despite having prior spy information. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key principles laid down are that the prosecution must establish an unbroken and secure chain of custody for narcotics to rely on a Chemical Examiner's report, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Does a delay in sending narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner without proof of safe custody vitiate the prosecution's case?
- Is the failure to associate independent witnesses fatal to a recovery case based on prior spy information?
- What is the legal consequence of a broken chain of custody regarding recovered narcotics?
- Is an accused entitled to acquittal if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
- Bacha Ayaz vs Umer Hayat2022 PHC 432 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-23Read full judgment →
- Babu Khan vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 979 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for filing a false complaint, which was rendered by the District and Sessions Judge, Hafizabad through summary proceedings initiated under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without a formal written complaint by the concerned public servant under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether Section 476 applies to such offences. The Lahore High Court held that Section 195(1)(a) imposes an absolute bar preventing courts from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 except upon a written complaint by the public servant concerned or their subordinate, and that Section 476 applies exclusively to offences under clauses (b) and (c) of Section 195(1), not clause (a). Consequently, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to initiate summary proceedings and convict the appellant directly, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the discharge of the appellant's bail bonds.
Questions settled- Can a court take cognizance of an offence under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code without a written complaint from the public servant concerned?
- Does Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- What are the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Babar Rasool vs Addl. District Judge etc.2022 LHC 1938 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-09Read full judgment →
- Babar Nawaz and 3 others vs Muhammad Riaz2022 PLJ Lahore 475 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-24Read full judgment →
- Babar Hussain vs The State and another2022 YLR 1488 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks post-arrest bail in a case involving cross-versions of an incident resulting in murder and injuries, registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when the prosecution's case involves conflicting versions of the occurrence, disputed aggression, and inconclusive evidence regarding the petitioner's specific role in the fatal injury. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, finding that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that in cross-version cases, determining the initial aggressor and evaluating conflicting evidence are matters to be resolved during trial, not at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that bail should not be withheld as punishment, and where reasonable grounds for further inquiry exist regarding the accused's complicity, the accused should not be incarcerated pending trial. The petition was accepted, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
Questions settled- Does the existence of cross-versions of an incident constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the determination of the primary aggressor in a criminal case a matter to be decided at the bail stage or during the trial?
- Should bail be withheld as a form of punishment in cases involving offences punishable with death or transportation?
- Azra Parveen vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 SHC 200 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-23Read full judgment →
- Azra Bibi vs General Manager, Personnel (CPO), Pakistan Railways HQ, Lahore & others2022 SCP 314 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment by the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the retrospective regularization of her deceased husband's service. The petitioner, as the widow of a former Pakistan Railways employee, sought to have her husband's regularization date back to his initial appointment in 1990 rather than 2000. The core legal question was whether a cause of action regarding service regularization, which was not agitated by the civil servant during his lifetime, survives to be pursued by his legal heirs after his death. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was rightly dismissed, affirming that the right to sue for service-related grievances is personal and does not survive the death of the civil servant if no proceedings were initiated during his lifetime. The Court laid down the principle that the maxim 'actio personalis moritur cum persona' applies to service matters, meaning personal service claims die with the individual, and legal heirs cannot initiate fresh service appeals for claims the deceased never pursued.
Questions settled- Does a cause of action regarding service regularization survive the death of a civil servant if no legal proceedings were initiated during his lifetime?
- Can legal heirs initiate a fresh appeal before a Service Tribunal for service grievances that the deceased civil servant did not pursue?
- Under what circumstances can legal heirs continue a service appeal that was pending at the time of the civil servant's death?
- Azmat Towellers (Pvt.) Ltd, Multan vs Khalid Anwar and others2022 PLD Supreme Court 370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for the restoration of a petition that was previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner sought restoration, claiming their counsel was present in court but briefly stepped out when the case was called. Upon review, the Court found no evidentiary support for this claim, noting the absence of an affidavit from the counsel and the lack of any record of presence by the Court Associate. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the primary responsibility of the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The Court held that the AOR bears the fundamental duty to ensure representation and attend to proceedings, a responsibility that is not absolved by the engagement of an Advocate Supreme Court (ASC). Because the AOR failed to appear on the date of dismissal and provided no justification for such absence, the Court affirmed that the application lacked merit. The principle laid down is that the AOR is primarily responsible for the conduct and representation of a case, and failure to attend without valid justification warrants the dismissal of restoration applications.
Questions settled- Does the engagement of an Advocate Supreme Court (ASC) absolve the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) of the responsibility to attend court proceedings?
- What is the primary responsibility of an Advocate-on-Record under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980?
- Can a restoration application be granted when the Advocate-on-Record fails to provide a valid justification for their absence on the date of dismissal?
- Azmat Towellers (Pvt.) Ltd Multan vs Khalid Anwar, etc.2022 PSC 602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application for the restoration of a civil petition that was previously dismissed for non-prosecution due to the non-appearance of the petitioner's counsel and Advocate-on-Record (AOR). The core legal question revolves around whether sufficient grounds and justification have been provided to recall the dismissal order and restore the petition. The Supreme Court held that the application lacked merit, noting that the counsel's unsworn oral assertion of stepping out was unsupported by the Court Associate's record or any affidavit, and that no excuse was offered for the absence of the AOR. The key principle laid down is that under the Supreme Court Rules 1980, the primary responsibility to act, appear, and plead on behalf of a party rests with the AOR, whose role is to ensure certainty of representation, and the engagement of an Advocate Supreme Court does not absolve the AOR of this duty.
Questions settled- Whether an application for restoration of a petition dismissed for non-prosecution can be granted without explaining the absence of the Advocate-on-Record?
- What is the primary responsibility of an Advocate-on-Record under the Supreme Court Rules 1980 regarding attendance and representation before the Court?
- Does the engagement of an Advocate Supreme Court absolve the Advocate-on-Record from attending the case?
- Azmat Towellers (Pvt.) Ltd Multan vs Khalid Anwar, etc2022 PSC 602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an application seeking the restoration of a civil petition that was previously dismissed for non-prosecution due to the non-appearance of the petitioner, Advocate-on-Record (AOR), or counsel. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient grounds and justification were established for restoring the petition and whether the AOR fulfilled their primary procedural obligations under the relevant rules. The Supreme Court held that the application lacked merit, noting that no affidavit supported the counsel's excuse of stepping out, the Court Associate's record confirmed no appearance, and the AOR completely failed to explain their own absence or fulfill their primary responsibility to attend to the case under the rules governing representation. The key principle laid down is that the Advocate-on-Record bears the principal and non-delegable responsibility to act, appear, and ensure representation for a party before the Supreme Court, and the engagement of an Advocate Supreme Court does not absolve the AOR of this duty.
Questions settled- What is the primary responsibility of an Advocate-on-Record under the Supreme Court Rules 1980 regarding the representation of a party?
- Does the engagement of an Advocate Supreme Court absolve the Advocate-on-Record from attending court proceedings?
- Are there sufficient grounds for restoring a petition dismissed for non-prosecution when neither the counsel nor the Advocate-on-Record provides an explanation for their absence?
- Azmat Jahan vs Additional District Judge, etc.2022 LHC 1927 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-08Read full judgment →
- Azizullah Bhayo vs Chief Executive Officer, Qesco, Quetta and 5 others2022 PLC 49 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking to set aside judgments passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, which had dismissed his grievance petition. The petitioner had been dismissed from service by QESCO and previously pursued remedies before the Federal Service Tribunal and the Supreme Court before filing a grievance application under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010 after a lapse of seven years. The core legal questions concerned whether a grievance petition filed after such a prolonged delay without seeking condonation of delay or showing sufficient cause is maintainable, and whether the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act regarding limitation are mandatory. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that limitation is mandatory, must be applied by the court even if not raised as a defense, and that prosecuting remedies before a wrong forum or acting with negligence does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay. The court affirmed that the law aids the vigilant and not the indolent.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act regarding the dismissal of time-barred matters are mandatory in nature?
- Can a party benefit from the time spent prosecuting a remedy before a wrong forum without showing due diligence and bona fides?
- Whether the defense of limitation can be waived or if it is a duty of the court to examine limitation regardless of pleadings?
- Aziz-Ur-Rehman alias Babul vs The State2022 PCRLJ 828 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Aziz-Ur-Rehman, who is accused of committing rape, house trespass, and criminal intimidation under sections 376, 452, and 506-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of sexual assault, despite his claims of false implication and the lack of corroborative DNA evidence. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the complainant’s FIR and subsequent statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were consistent, prompt, and confidence-inspiring. The court established that in cases of rape, which are typically committed in private, the victim's testimony alone can be sufficient to connect the accused to the crime. Furthermore, the court held that because the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and given the heinous nature of the crime, the applicant was not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The trial court was directed to conclude proceedings expeditiously.
Questions settled- Is the testimony of a rape victim sufficient to connect an accused to the crime in the absence of corroborative evidence?
- Does the delay in collecting DNA samples in a rape case automatically entitle the accused to bail?
- Does an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally disentitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
- Can a bail application be dismissed based on a tentative assessment of the FIR and the victim's statement?
- Azhar Mehmood Ahmed Qureshi vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd through its2022 IHC 176 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Azhar Ali vs Khalid Iqbal etc2022 LHC 2768, 2024 MLD 1455 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-30Read full judgment →
- Azhar Ali Farooqi vs Federation of Pakistan and another2022 SHC 174 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-18Read full judgment →
- Azhar Abbass vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 104 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the offense of rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a trial court judgment that sentenced him to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant contradictions in the prosecution's narrative and the medical evidence presented. The Lahore High Court found that the prosecution's story was inherently doubtful, noting inconsistencies between the initial application to the Magistrate and the FIR, as well as implausible circumstances regarding the alleged commission of the crime. Furthermore, the medical evidence provided by the Lady Doctor contradicted the prosecution's timeline and allegations. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the fundamental principle that the burden lies entirely upon the prosecution to establish a criminal charge beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to do so entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of legal right, not as a concession.
Questions settled- Does a contradiction between the initial application to a Magistrate and the FIR regarding the number of perpetrators and the nature of the incident undermine the prosecution's case?
- Is the prosecution required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction?
- Can an accused be convicted for rape when the medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's timeline and narrative of the occurrence?
- Azhar Abbas Haideri vs Government Of The Punjab and others2022 PLD Lahore 278 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-05Read full judgment →
- Azgard Nine Limited and others vs Registrar Of Companies and others2022 CLD 114 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-12Read full judgment →
- Azmat Khan vs The State2022 YLR 1158 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a judgment passed by the Model Criminal Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentencing him to imprisonment for life as Ta'zir for murders committed during a robbery. The core legal question was whether the trial court could lawfully convict the appellant under Section 17(4) for life imprisonment as Ta'zir while simultaneously holding that Hadd requirements were missing, and without recording reasons under Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for not awarding the death sentence. The Federal Shariat Court held that Section 17(4) of the Ordinance prescribes exclusively a death sentence as Hadd and does not provide for a lesser sentence of life imprisonment as Ta'zir, and that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case back to the trial court for re-writing of the judgment in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 provides for any sentence other than death as Hadd?
- Is a trial court obligated under Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to state reasons when passing a sentence other than death for an offence punishable with death?
- What is the legal effect of a judgment that suffers from incurable procedural defects and violates mandatory provisions of law?
- Azeem Khan and another vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary2022 LHC 7172 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
- Azad Govt. & 4 others vs Sardar Muhammad Javed Ayub & 33 others2022 SC AJ&K 20 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-06-14Read full judgment →
- Azad Government of The State Of Jammu And Kashmir Through Chief Secr_61b90a482022 SC AJK 48 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Azad Government of The State of Jammu & Kashmir Through Secretary2022 SC AJK 46 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Ayesha Sajid vs Federation of Pakistan through Finance Secretary and 32022 CLC 1188 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-16Read full judgment →
- Ayaz-Ul-Haq vs State through NAB2022 MLD 1287 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(a)(ix) and (x) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for alleged corruption and corrupt practices related to a failed mudariba investment scheme. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s failure to return invested funds or pay promised profits constituted the criminal offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust, and whether the complainants represented the public at large. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish dishonest intention at the inception of the contract, noting that the appellant acted as a guarantor and the complainants had voluntarily entered into investment agreements. The Court determined that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, arising from a breach of contract rather than criminal conduct. Furthermore, it held that a small number of complainants did not satisfy the statutory requirement of public at large. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, establishing that mere violation of a contract does not ipso facto attract penal consequences for cheating or criminal breach of trust.
Questions settled- Does a breach of a mudariba investment contract automatically constitute the offence of cheating under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
- What constitutes the public at large for the purpose of establishing an offence under Section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
- Is the mere failure to pay promised profits on an investment sufficient to prove dishonest intention at the inception of a contract?
- Ayaz Sadiq vs Govt. of Punjab and others2022 LHC 3746 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-26Read full judgment →
- Ayaz Muhammad and others vs Mst. Nargis and others2022 CLC 1545 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-07Read full judgment →
- Ayaz Hussain s/o Sikandar Ali by caste Bhatti vs The State2022 SHC 110 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 4000 grams of charas. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically regarding the failure to associate independent witnesses in a populated area and the integrity of the chain of custody for the recovered narcotics. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the failure to associate independent witnesses during a public recovery, coupled with material contradictions in the testimonies of police officials regarding the incident, undermined the prosecution's narrative. Furthermore, the Court held that a two-day delay in transmitting the samples to the Chemical Examiner, without establishing safe custody and transit, created a fatal gap in the chain of custody. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The Court reaffirmed that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Does a failure to associate independent witnesses during a recovery in a populated area invalidate the prosecution's case?
- What is the legal consequence of a break in the chain of custody regarding the transmission of narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove the safe custody and transit of recovered narcotics?
- Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
- Ayaz Ali Rajpar and another vs Advocate General Sindh and 3 others2022 PLD Sindh 310 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-13Read full judgment →
- Ayaz Ahmad vs The State and another2022 LHC 2010 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-03Read full judgment →
- Ayaz Ahmad vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1480 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Ayaz Ahmad, in a case registered under Section 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of abduction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances surrounding the FIR and the evidentiary material. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, observing that the fourteen-day delay in lodging the FIR, the complainant's status as a hearsay witness, and the discharge of a co-accused based on the complainant's affidavit rendered the case one of further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that since the offence fell under the non-prohibitory clause, bail should be the rule rather than the exception. The Court also held that the non-recovery of the alleged abductee did not justify continued incarceration and that the benefit of doubt could be extended at the bail stage. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail, with the Court clarifying that these observations were tentative and limited to the bail proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a delay in the registration of an FIR, without explanation, constitute a ground for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is the non-recovery of an alleged abductee a sufficient ground to deny post-arrest bail to an accused?
- Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the stage of deciding a post-arrest bail application?
- Does the principle that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception apply to offences falling under the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Ayaz Ahmad Malik and 4 others vs Environmental Protection Agency, Government Of Punjab through Director General and 3 others2022 CLD 184 · Punjab Environmental Tribunal · 2021-06-22Read full judgment →
- Aurangzeb vs The State and others2022 SCMR 1229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the concurrent orders of the High Court and the Trial Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondent in a case registered under sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in granting bail despite the respondent being specifically nominated in the FIR for causing firearm injuries supported by medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts failed to properly assess the material on record, as the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and did not warrant further inquiry. The Court emphasized that while bail cancellation requires exceptional grounds, the lower courts acted beyond their scope by ignoring established principles and failing to maintain judicial balance. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and cancelled the respondent's bail, ruling that the bail grant was perverse and unsustainable in law.
Questions settled- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude the grant of bail when the case is fully established?
- Can bail be cancelled if the trial court's order granting bail is found to be perverse and based on a failure to properly assess material evidence?
- Is a trial court permitted to deeply appreciate facts at the bail stage?
- Aurangzeb & Others vs Tehsil Municipal Administration Mansehra2022 PHC 522 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-27Read full judgment →
- Aurangzeb & another vs Adam Khan Jadoon & others2022 PHC 336 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-19Read full judgment →
- Aurangzaib vs Muhammad Yaqoob and 3 others2022 PCRLJ 1047 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the order of the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Bhimber, confirming pre-arrest bail granted to the accused-respondent in a case registered under sections 457 of the Azad Penal Code and 14 of the Offence (Enforcement of Hudood) Act. The core legal question was whether the confirmation of pre-arrest bail by the trial court suffered from any illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice warranting interference in revision. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that at the bail stage only a tentative assessment of the record is required, deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible, and strong, exceptional grounds—such as misuse of bail concession, tampering with evidence, or patent illegality—are required to recall or cancel bail, which were absent in this case. The key principle laid down is that the principles governing the grant of bail differ from those for its cancellation, and bail already granted cannot be recalled merely because the accused is charged with a heinous offence in the absence of solid grounds showing patent illegality or misuse of the concession.
Questions settled- Whether deeper appreciation of evidence is permissible at the bail stage?
- What grounds are required for the cancellation or recall of bail already granted by a competent court?
- Can bail be recalled merely on the ground that the accused is charged with a heinous offence?
- Aurangzaib Khan vs Director General Health Azad Government of the State2022 PLJ AJ&K 122 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-07-25Read full judgment →
- Aurangzaib and another vs The State2022 PCRLJ 853 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Special Judge CNS Sibi convicting the appellants under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for transporting sixty-eight kilograms of charas concealed in a vehicle. The core legal questions involved whether the driver of a vehicle can be held responsible for narcotics recovered from secret cavities, whether police official testimony is credible without independent witnesses under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whether delay in sending samples to the chemical examiner is fatal, and whether a mere passenger in the vehicle shares liability. The Balochistan High Court held that the driver of the vehicle is in control and possession of the vehicle and is liable for narcotics found within it, that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony is not barred by the exclusion of section 103 Cr.P.C. under the CNS Act, and that minor delays in sending samples are not fatal when safe custody is established. However, the court held that mere presence as a passenger without proof of knowledge or control does not establish guilt. The appeal of the driver was dismissed, while the appeal of the passenger was allowed and he was acquitted.
Questions settled- Is the driver of a vehicle held responsible for the transportation of narcotics recovered from secret cavities of the vehicle?
- Does the exclusion of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 render police officials competent witnesses without independent corroboration?
- Is mere delay in dispatching narcotic samples to the chemical examiner fatal to the prosecution case?
- Does the mere presence of an accused as a passenger in a vehicle carrying narcotics establish his knowledge and guilt?
- Auqaf Department through Chief Administrator Auqaf and 2 Others vs Muhammad Javed and 74 Others2022 MLD 1987 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-01-20Read full judgment →
- Aum Media Publisher, LLC through Authorized Officer and another vs Mohib2022 CLC 585 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
- Attorney General of Canada vs Collins Family Trust and another2022 SCMR 1958 · Supreme Court of CanadaRead full judgment →
- Attock Petroleum Limited (Apl) vs National Highway Authority and another2022 PTD 222 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by an oil marketing company challenging demand notices issued by the National Highway Authority (NHA) and its private contractor for the collection of fees and charges on the display of promotional material and hoardings on private properties alongside National Highways. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the NHA or the Federal Government possesses the legal mandate under the parent statute to levy taxes, fees, or license fees on promotional displays on private land without statutory backing or a quid pro quo. The Court held that the impugned demand notices were issued without lawful authority, declaring that neither the parent statute nor subordinate legislation (such as rules or regulations) authorizes the levy of a tax, fee-simplicitor, cess-fee, or license fee on promotional displays on private premises. The ratio decidendi is that subordinate legislation cannot expand the scope of a parent statute to create a tax or fee without clear legislative backing, and any such levy lacking statutory authorization and the requisite quid pro quo is void ab initio. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned notices were set aside.
Questions settled- Whether the National Highway Authority has the statutory power under the National Highway Act, 1991 to levy a fee or charge on the display of promotional material on private property?
- Can subordinate legislation like rules and regulations impose a tax or fee in the absence of an explicit enabling provision in the parent statute?
- Does the levy of a fee for promotional displays require the element of quid pro quo and a direct correlation between the service rendered and the charge collected?
- Whether a bald and unsubstantiated plea of factual controversy can oust the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Attaullah son of Bhawal Khan vs Ali Gulab son of Abdul Ghani2022 SHC 92 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-14Read full judgment →
- Atta Ur Rehman vs The State2022 PCRLJ 878 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the sentence imposed by the Special Court (CNS), Islamabad, following the appellant's conviction for smuggling narcotics under the Customs Act, 1969. The appellant, having pleaded guilty at trial, did not contest the conviction on appeal but sought a reduction in the quantum of sentence, citing his status as a first-time offender and sole breadwinner. The core legal question concerned the appellate court's discretion to modify a sentence where the accused has pleaded guilty and seeks leniency. The Court held that while an appeal against a conviction based on a guilty plea is generally barred under Section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the legality and quantum of the sentence remain open to challenge. Emphasizing the distinction between habitual offenders and first-time novices, the Court ruled that rehabilitation is a primary objective of sentencing. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, ordering the appellant's immediate release, establishing the principle that first-time offenders showing remorse deserve lenient sentencing consideration.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court review the quantum of a sentence if the accused has pleaded guilty at the trial stage?
- Does the status of a first-time offender justify a reduction in sentence to the period already undergone?
- Is an appeal maintainable against a conviction based on a plea of guilty under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Atta Muhammad and others vs Ali Dino Rajper and others2022 SHC 66 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-14Read full judgment →
- Atlas Honda Ltd vs Pakistan & others2022 SHC 21, PTCL 2022 CL. 253, 2022 [M] CLR 848, 2022 PCTLR 905, 2022 PTD · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-18Read full judgment →
- Atlas Honda Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and two others2022 SHC 130 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-19Read full judgment →
- Atif Riaz vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary Ministry of Religious2022 LHC 1743 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Atif Javed Abbasi and others vs Azad Government of The State of Jammu2022 PLJ AJ&K 90 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Atif Ali and others vs Abdul Basit and another2022 SCP 280, 2022 SCMR 2055 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous appeal arose from an office objection raised by the Supreme Court registry refusing to entertain a pre-arrest bail petition based on Order XXIII Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, following the cancellation of the applicants' pre-arrest bail by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the surrender requirement under the first proviso to Rule 8 of Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 applies when challenging an order cancelling pre-arrest bail rather than an order of imprisonment or fine. The Supreme Court held that the office objection was misconceived because the first proviso applies only where an order of imprisonment or fine is challenged, and does not bar petitions challenging the cancellation of pre-arrest bail. Furthermore, the Court noted that the second proviso explicitly permits entertaining bail before arrest petitions where the petitioner undertakes to appear and surrender in Court. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the office objection overruled.
Questions settled- Does the surrender requirement under the first proviso to Rule 8 of Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 apply when a petition challenges an order cancelling pre-arrest bail?
- Can a petition involving pre-arrest bail be entertained if the petitioner undertakes to appear and surrender in Court under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980?
- Atif Ahmed & another vs Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan2022 SHC 300 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-01Read full judgment →
- Ateeq-Ur-Rahman and others vs The State through A.A.G and others2022 PHC 418 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-18Read full judgment →
- Associated Consulting Engineers Ace Limited And Ace Architectural And Town Planning Services Limited_ In the matter of vs Not2022 CLD 161 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-31Read full judgment →
- Assistant Director Supply and Transport and 2 others vs Haji Ghulam2022 YLR 1323 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-11-19Read full judgment →
- Assistant Director Mines & Mineral Department, Swabi vs Fazal Sadiq and others2022 PHC 38, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 142, 2022 CLC 1392 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-21Read full judgment →
- Assaddullah vs The State2022 PCRLJ 774 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, arising from an alleged recovery of a hand grenade and a Kalashnikov following spy information. The core legal questions involve evaluating whether material contradictions in police testimony, failure to associate independent mashirs in a populated area, discrepancies between recovery memos and expert reports regarding weapon numbers, and the failure to investigate the appellant's defense create reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that multiple infirmities and lacunae in the prosecution's case fatally undermined it, and a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. The court laid down the principle that failure by police to associate independent witnesses on spy information, coupled with unexplained material discrepancies in recovery evidence and the overlooking of a plausible defense, entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of police officials to associate independent mashirs in a populated area on spy information creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution case?
- Does a discrepancy between the recovery memo describing a weapon as numberless and the forensic report describing it with a rubbed number vitiate the recovery?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person?
- Whether the omission to investigate the defense plea raised by the accused weakens the prosecution case?
- Asmat vs Sahib Rokhan2022 PHC 528 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-03Read full judgment →
- Asmat Ullah Khan vs Govt of KPK & Others2022 PHC 584 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-14Read full judgment →
- Asma Shaheen vs Govt of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & Others2022 PHC 488 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-15Read full judgment →
- Asma Parveen vs Secretary School Education, and others2022 PLJ Lahore 963 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-25Read full judgment →
- Asma Malik vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary Ministry of Interior, etc2022 IHC 138 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-17Read full judgment →
- Askari General Insurance Company Limited through President/Chief2022 CLD 425 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-13Read full judgment →
- Askari Bank Limited vs Tara Chand2022 CLD 1042 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal acquittal appeal challenges the order of the Banking Court whereby the respondent was acquitted under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a complaint filed under section 20(1)(a) and (b) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The trial court had based the acquittal on a Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) handwriting expert report declaring the respondent's signatures fake and on the respondent's travel history showing him abroad at the relevant time, all prior to the recording of evidence. The core legal question was whether an acquittal under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 could be sustained based on unexhibited documents and unexamined expert opinions without affording the complainant an opportunity to lead evidence. The Sindh High Court held that a handwriting expert's report does not automatically fall under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and requires formal proof and cross-examination, and that a plea of alibi or defense documents must be established through evidence during trial. The court set aside the acquittal order and remanded the matter back for a trial on merits.
Questions settled- Can a handwriting expert's report be used as evidence without examining its author and exhibiting the report during trial?
- Whether an acquittal under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is sustainable when evidence of the prosecution has yet to be recorded?
- Does section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to handwriting expert opinions in the same manner as chemical or serological examiner reports?
- How should a plea of alibi and challenges to the authenticity of documents be addressed during criminal proceedings?
- Asima Sarwat and another vs Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), through Chairman Headquarters, Islamabad and 3 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 349 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the transfer order of the petitioners, who are husband and wife serving as teachers in the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), from Islamabad to Jauharabad. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition against the transfer orders of employees belonging to a strategic organization and whether the principle of master and servant applies to them in the absence of statutory rules. The Islamabad High Court held that since the rules regulating employees of the PAEC are non-statutory pursuant to Section 15 of the National Command Authority Act 2010, the relationship is governed by the master and servant principle, rendering the constitutional petition non-maintainable. The Court laid down the key principle that employees governed by non-statutory rules cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for individual service grievances like transfers, and that transfer is an inherent incident of service where the competent authority is the sole judge of administrative exigencies.
Questions settled- Whether employees of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission are governed by statutory or non-statutory rules?
- Are constitutional petitions under Article 199 maintainable against transfer orders of employees governed by non-statutory rules?
- Does an employee have a vested right to remain posted at a place of their own choice?
- What is the effect of the proviso to Section 15 of the National Command Authority Act 2010 on the service terms of employees of strategic organizations?
- Asim Irfan Ahmed vs Learned Additional District And Sessions Judge, Islamabad etc2022 PLJ Islamabad 40 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Asiya Naz vs Lal Bibi and others2022 PLJ Quetta 118 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-04-27Read full judgment →