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.

• Asif Naeem vs Mst. Balqees Fatima and others2022 LHC 6940 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
• Asif Khan and others vs State & anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 453 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-22
  terrorism financingproscribed organizationbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalanti-terrorism courtinsufficient evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence under Sections 11-H(3), 11-I, 11-J(2) and 11-N of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, recorded by the Anti-Terrorism Court for allegedly providing financial support for purchasing land and constructing a seminary for a proscribed organization, Jaish-e-Muhammad. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges of terrorism financing and association with a proscribed organization beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to produce any incriminating evidence establishing a nexus between the appellants and the proscribed organization, or proving that they collected funds, especially considering that the seminary's control had already been taken over by the government prior to the alleged date of the offence. The court laid down the principle that when the prosecution fails to establish foundational facts and substantial gaps exist in evidence, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused, resulting in their acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for terrorism financing can be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce evidence of fund collection or a nexus with a proscribed organization?
  • Does the benefit of doubt apply when material contradictions and temporal impossibilities exist in the prosecution's case?
  • Whether failure to prove foundational allegations under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 warrants the setting aside of a conviction and an immediate acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Hussain vs Election Commission of Pakistan etc2022 LHC 8269 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-21
  election officialdisciplinary proceedingsfunctus officiodeputationistjurisdiction of ECPPEEDA Act 2006Elections Act 2017show cause noticeconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated batch of constitutional petitions challenged the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against various government officials and employees who had been deputed for election duties during the bye-elections for a National Assembly constituency. The core legal questions involved whether the ECP retains jurisdiction to conduct disciplinary proceedings against deputed staff after the election in the constituency has been declared null and void, and whether such proceedings can bypass the statutory procedures and prior approvals required under applicable service laws like the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The Lahore High Court held that upon the annulment of the election and declaration of its fate, the staff ceased to be 'election officials' under the Elections Act, 2017, rendering the ECP functus officio regarding disciplinary control over them. The Court laid down that the ECP lacks jurisdiction to initiate independent departmental proceedings against deputationists outside their parent departments after the conclusion of the election process, and that any such disciplinary action must be routed through their respective parent departments under the relevant efficiency and discipline laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Election Commission of Pakistan retains jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against deputed election staff after the election results in a constituency have been annulled?
  • Do persons deployed for election duties continue to remain election officials under the Elections Act, 2017 after the conclusion or scrapping of an election process?
  • Can a show-cause notice or inconclusive executive action be challenged in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction?
  • Whether disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant on deputation can be initiated by a borrowing agency without seeking prior permission from the parent department as mandated by the PEEDA Act, 2006?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali Oulakh etc vs Provincial Police Officer etc2022 LHC 3803 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-26
  probationary appointmentcivil servantservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional petitionterms and conditions of servicebar of jurisdictionpolice service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the cancellation of the petitioners' appointments as temporary Sub-Inspectors (T/SI) while they were on probation. The core legal question was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition, or if such jurisdiction was barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, due to the petitioners' status as civil servants. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that individuals appointed on probation, including those recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission, fall within the definition of civil servants under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Consequently, the cancellation of their appointments constitutes a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court established that jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a court through the consent or undertaking of parties if it is otherwise barred by law. Thus, the petitioners were directed to approach the appropriate departmental hierarchy or the Punjab Service Tribunal for redressal.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees appointed on probation considered civil servants under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to challenge the cancellation of a probationer's appointment?
  • Can jurisdiction be conferred upon a court through the consent or undertaking of the parties if it is otherwise barred by law?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over the cancellation of an appointment that relates to the terms and conditions of a civil servant's service?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif @ Loosi and others vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 704 · Lahore High Court
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubteye-witness testimonyrecovery evidenceFIR delayacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellants for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the eye-witness accounts, the suspicious timing of the FIR registration, and the lack of credible corroborative evidence. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with doubt, particularly regarding the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses, the unnatural conduct of the complainant, and the failure of the recovery evidence to link the appellants to the crime. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants. The key principle laid down is that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of an accused, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt as a matter of right, not grace or concession. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that motive is a double-edged weapon and that the failure to join independent witnesses during recovery proceedings renders such evidence unreliable.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Does the failure to join independent witnesses from the vicinity during recovery proceedings render the recovery evidence unreliable?
  • Can the prosecution's case be considered doubtful if eye-witnesses claim to be present during a fatal attack but remain unhurt by the assailants?
  • Is the motive for a crime considered a double-edged weapon in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashraf Ali Shah vs Government of Pakistan through Chairman, Federal2022 PLJ Tr. C (Services) 119 · Federal Service Tribunal
  proforma promotionretired civil servantservice appeallachesdepartmental promotion committeesuperannuationpensionary benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenged an order refusing the appellant's request for proforma promotion to BS-18 after his retirement. The appellant, a retired civil servant, contended that he was eligible for promotion prior to his superannuation and that the delay in convening the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was not attributable to him. The respondents argued that no junior officer was promoted ahead of the appellant, that he was not in service when the relevant DPC was convened, and that he had already accepted pensionary benefits without protest. The Federal Service Tribunal held that retrospective proforma promotion is not admissible for a retired civil servant under the rules. The Tribunal emphasized that proforma promotion is intended to protect civil servants required to serve outside their parent cadre in the public interest, not to facilitate personal promotion claims after retirement. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the appellant's claim was barred by laches due to significant delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as meritless and time-barred, affirming that fitness for promotion cannot be determined after retirement.

  Questions settled

  • Is a retired civil servant entitled to claim proforma promotion to a higher grade?
  • Can a civil servant claim proforma promotion if no junior officer was promoted ahead of them prior to their retirement?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine the fitness of a retired civil servant for promotion?
  • Is a departmental representation filed after retirement for proforma promotion maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashique Hussain through Authorized Attorney vs The State and another2022 MLD 531 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-20
  superdaricustody of vehicletraffic accidentcriminal revisionsurety bondproperty pending trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Malir, Karachi, whereby an application under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the release of a bus involved in a traffic accident was granted subject to furnishing solvent surety equal to the value of the vehicle along with a personal recognition bond. The core legal question was whether a vehicle involved in a traffic accident can be detained as property used for the commission of an offence and whether requiring a surety amount equal to the vehicle's full value is justified. The Sindh High Court held that a vehicle involved in a vehicular accident is not property used in the commission of an offence under Section 516-A, Cr.P.C., and that detaining it or imposing excessive surety penalizes the innocent owner. The Court modified the impugned order, directing that the vehicle be released to its owner upon executing a personal recognition bond of Rs. 200,000, laying down the principle that vehicles seized in accident cases should be promptly returned after inspection under Section 95 of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a vehicle involved in a traffic accident can be considered as property used for the commission of an offence under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court demand solvent surety equivalent to the full market value of a vehicle for its release on superdari pending trial?
  • What is the statutory time limit and procedure for inspecting and returning a vehicle involved in an accident under Section 95 of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashique Ali Mari vs Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khairpur and 32022 YLR 644 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-08Read full judgment →
• Ashique Ali and 2 others vs The State2022 YLR 1211 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-26
  criminal appealmurder convictionocular evidenceinterested witnessappreciation of evidenceprompt FIRmedical evidencenon-recovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jacobabad, which convicted the appellants for the murder of Karim Bux and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence provided by related witnesses, the impact of alleged contradictions and improvements in testimony, and whether the non-recovery of weapons from two appellants vitiated the prosecution's case. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the prompt registration of the FIR and the corroboration of ocular testimony by medical evidence and circumstantial proof established the appellants' guilt. The court reiterated that the mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render them 'interested' or unreliable if their testimony is consistent and confidence-inspiring. Furthermore, it held that minor discrepancies in evidence do not undermine the prosecution's case, and the non-recovery of weapons is not fatal when other direct, natural evidence sufficiently connects the accused to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased render their testimony unreliable or interested?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when crime weapons are not recovered from all accused persons?
  • Do minor contradictions and improvements in witness testimony necessitate the rejection of the entire prosecution case?
  • Does the prompt registration of an FIR and immediate medical examination exclude the possibility of fabrication in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Ali Chaudhary vs Federal Board of Revenue and others2022 PTD 1627 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-07Read full judgment →
• Ashfaque alias Shaka vs The State2022 PSC CRI 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-04
  homicidemurderous assaulthostile witnesseyewitness testimonyweapon recoveryleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had altered his death sentence to imprisonment for life under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for the homicide of a woman following a minor altercation. The core legal questions involved the reliability of eyewitness testimony in the face of an injured witness turning hostile, the requirement of independent corroboration when co-accused are acquitted, and the effect of an alleged delayed autopsy on the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court held that the defection of an injured witness does not inherently destroy the prosecution's case when other eyewitnesses named in the crime report remain steadfast and credible, and that the recovery of the matching weapon further corroborated the petitioner's guilt. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined, affirming the conviction and the substituted sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the defection or hostility of an injured eyewitness automatically destroy the entire prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction be maintained on the testimony of remaining eyewitnesses when a co-accused has been acquitted?
  • Does a delayed autopsy necessarily reflect adversely upon the merits of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmad vs Station House Officer and 4 others2022 PLJ Lahore 74 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-29Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmad and others vs Mst. Khurshid Begum2022 YLR 1373 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-25Read full judgment →
• Asadullah Solangi and another vs The State (NAB) through Director2022 PCRLJ 1032 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-27
  corruption and corrupt practicesmisuse of authorityfraudulent land transferrevenue record tamperingNational Accountability Ordinanceplea bargainburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses criminal appeals filed by Asadullah Solangi and Ali Akbar Parhiar challenging their conviction and sentence under Section 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 for corruption and corrupt practices. The appellants, serving as revenue officials (Mukhtiarkars), were accused of facilitating the fraudulent sale and transfer of 237 acres of government land through fake record entries and unauthorized sale certificates. The core legal questions revolved around whether the National Accountability Bureau was competent to initiate the reference, whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the absence of personal financial gain absolves public office holders of criminal liability under the Ordinance. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the prosecution established the appellants' misuse of authority and connivance in bypassing legal formalities to usurp state assets. The court laid down that public office holders who facilitate corruption through negligence or misuse of authority are criminally liable even without direct personal gain, and that courts must maintain zero tolerance for economic corruption affecting state survival.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Accountability Bureau is competent to initiate a reference on the basis of complaints and press clippings under Section 18(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Does the absence of personal financial gain exempt a public office holder from criminal liability under Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can a conviction for corruption be sustained against revenue officials who attest fraudulent mutation entries and issue sale certificates for government land without verification?
  • What is the effect of an accused failing to depose on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in rebuttal of consistent prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Asadullah Khan, Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd vs Muslim Commercial Bank2022 SCP 278, 2023 PLJ SC 115, 2022 SCMR 2034 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-07-28
  maintainability of appealdirect appealpetition for leave to appealconcurrent findingslimitationcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a consolidated judgment of the High Court of Balochistan dismissing an RFA and a civil revision. The core legal question was whether an appeal under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan is competent when a party challenges only the part of a High Court judgment that dismissed their claim, while accepting a modified portion in their favour, and whether concurrent findings of fact regarding unproven deposits warrant interference. The Supreme Court held that where a judgment is partially upheld and partially reversed, and only the dismissed part is challenged, it does not constitute a variation under Article 185(2)(d) making a direct appeal competent; instead, a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) is required. Furthermore, concurrent findings of fact based on a failure to prove documentary evidence cannot be interfered with. The Court laid down the principle that partial maintenance of a lower court decision combined with a dismissal of the appellant's claim requires a petition for leave to appeal rather than a direct appeal under Article 185(2)(d).

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution is competent against a High Court judgment that partially modifies a decree in favour of the appellant while dismissing the rest of their claim?
  • What constitutes a 'varied' judgment under Article 185(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the absence of a counsel on account of performing Umrah constitute sufficient ground for the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact where a party fails to prove relevant documents through oral or documentary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Mahmood and 4 others vs Government of Punjab through Chief2022 LHC 2838, 2022 CLD 1430 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-26Read full judgment →
• Asad Arfeen vs Province of Punjab and Others2022 PTD 1441 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-21Read full judgment →
• Asad Ali Khan vs The Conservator of Forest & others2022 SHC 192, 2024 CLC 239 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-11Read full judgment →
• Ary Communications Limited through duly Authorized Officer vs Council of Complaints, Islamabad through Secretary and 2 others2022 PLD Sindh 552 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-17Read full judgment →
• Arslan Aijaz vs Mst. Sanober and 2 others2022 YLR 450 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
• Arshad Sohail son of Abdul Rasheed Khan, r/o House No.177 Mohallah2022 PHC 128 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Arshad Altaf Tahir and others vs Tariq Mahmood Hashmi (Deceased)2022 CLC 547 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-08Read full judgment →
• Arshad alias Goga vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 198 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-06
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryfurther inquiryborderline casestatutory investigation violationfundamental rightsliberty
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 1285 grams of chars. The core legal questions involved whether the investigation conducted by an ASI below the prescribed rank violates statutory provisions, and whether a recovery marginally exceeding one kilogram constitutes a borderline case warranting further inquiry. The Islamabad High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail, holding that the investigation carried out by an officer below the competent rank, coupled with the borderline quantity of the recovered substance and the awaiting chemical report, brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The key principle laid down is that where the recovery of a narcotic substance falls near the borderline between statutory clauses and procedural mandates regarding investigation are questionable, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an investigation conducted by an officer below the prescribed rank under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 make the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Whether the recovery of a narcotic substance marginally exceeding one kilogram qualifies as a borderline case between clauses (b) and (c) of Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can mere involvement of an accused in other criminal cases serve as a ground to withhold bail when the current case otherwise falls within the scope of further inquiry?
  • Does unjustified incarceration prior to conclusion of trial warrant the grant of bail when the recovery is of a borderline quantity?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali Qadri vs Additional District Judge, Khanewal and others2022 PLJ Lahore 416 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-01Read full judgment →
• Arsalan Raza vs Justice of Peace, etc2022 LHC 6953, 2024 PCRLJ 351 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-07
  First Information Reportregistration of criminal casecognizable offenceJustice of Peacepolice powersconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the dismissal of his application by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace, who had refused to direct the registration of a criminal case under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question was whether a Station House Officer can use Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Rule 24.4 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, to inquire into and refuse the registration of an information regarding a cognizable offence under Section 154 before registering a criminal case. The Lahore High Court held that the SHO has a mandatory statutory duty to register a criminal case upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence, and that Rule 24.4 and Section 157 apply only at a post-registration stage. The impugned order was set aside, and the petition was allowed with directions to register the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Station House Officer refuse to register a criminal case under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, by conducting an inquiry prior to registration?
  • Whether Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, read with Rule 24.4 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, can be invoked before the registration of an FIR?
  • Is the reasonableness or credibility of information a condition precedent for recording a first information report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Arooj Asghar vs Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Civil2022 LHC 6743, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 222 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-26
  government accommodationallotment policyexecutive discretionconstitutional petitionadministrative lawvested rightrule of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Commissioner, Faisalabad, which cancelled the petitioner's allotment of a government residence and re-allotted it to the previous occupant, respondent No. 5. The core legal question was whether the executive authority could arbitrarily withdraw a valid, unconditional allotment of government accommodation in favor of a former occupant who had previously vacated the premises and whose prior allotment had been cancelled. The Court held that the impugned order was illegal and without lawful authority. It found that the Allotment Policy did not support the cancellation of the petitioner's valid allotment, nor did it justify the respondent's retention of the property. The Court emphasized that executive authorities must act fairly, independently, and strictly in accordance with the law, avoiding arbitrary decisions based on whims. It further highlighted the lack of clear, approved criteria for allotment categories in the existing policy, directing the Chief Secretary to harmonize the policy and ensure future allotments are made purely on merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a government servant have a vested right to the allotment of government-owned residential accommodation?
  • Can an executive authority cancel a valid, unconditional allotment of government housing without specific policy authorization?
  • Is a government servant entitled to choose between multiple official residences based on personal preference?
  • Does the pendency of litigation before a court of law automatically debar executive authorities from performing their statutory functions?
  Read full judgment →
• Arif Mehmood vs Additional District Judge etc2022 PLJ Lahore 85 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-16Read full judgment →
• Arif Mahmood vs Azhar Iqbal2022 PLJ Lahore 499 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-28Read full judgment →
• Arif Kamal and another vs The State2022 CLD 902 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-03
  Special Court (Offences in Banks)jurisdictionbanking fraudscheduled offenceinsurance claim fraudcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions by a Special Court (Offences in Banks) for fraud involving fake insurance claims. The appellants, employees of the State Life Insurance Corporation and private individuals, were convicted for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The core legal question was whether the Special Court possessed jurisdiction to try these offences, given that the fraud targeted an insurance company rather than a bank, and no bank employees were involved. The Court held that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction, as the offences were not committed in respect of or in connection with the business of a bank. The Court established that the mere use of bank accounts as an unwitting conduit for fraud does not bring an offence within the ambit of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984. Consequently, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted, with liberty granted to the prosecution to pursue the matter before the appropriate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Court (Offences in Banks) have jurisdiction to try offences where the alleged fraud targets an insurance company rather than a bank?
  • Does the mere use of a bank account as a conduit for fraudulent transactions constitute an offence committed in connection with the business of a bank under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984?
  • Can a Special Court (Offences in Banks) exercise jurisdiction over an accused where no bank employee is involved in the alleged criminality?
  Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain vs University of Karachi2022 SHC 340, 2022 MLD 1892 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-17Read full judgment →
• Arif Fareed vs Bibi Sara & others2022 SCP 400 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-12
  Family CourtChild maintenanceNon-joinder of partiesConstitutional jurisdictionExpeditious disposalRights-based approachLeave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that upheld a family court decree. The petitioner contended that the decree was inherently defective because the minor daughter was not formally arrayed as a plaintiff in the suit. The core legal question was whether the non-joinder of a minor child as a formal party renders a family court decree invalid, even when maintenance for that child was explicitly pleaded and sought in the plaint. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no miscarriage of justice occurred. The Court emphasized that the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, empowers courts to devise their own procedures to ensure expeditious disposal, prioritizing the welfare of women and children over strict procedural technicalities. The Court affirmed that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has limited application in family proceedings. Furthermore, the Court cautioned High Courts against routinely exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as a substitute for appeal or revision, noting that the legislature intended to limit family litigation to the appellate stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to formally implead a minor child as a plaintiff in a family suit invalidate a decree for maintenance where the claim was otherwise clearly pleaded?
  • Is the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to proceedings before a Family Court?
  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 as a substitute for appeal or revision in family court matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Arif Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court vs State Life Insurance2022 CLC 577 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-19Read full judgment →
• Arif Belgaumi and 4 others vs Sindh Environmental Protection Agency2022 CLD 502 · Sindh Environmental Protection Tribunal · 2021-11-09Read full judgment →
• Archana Rana vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another2022 PSC CRI 14 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-03-01
  quashing of criminal proceedingscheatingcriminal breach of trustSection 482 Cr.P.C.ingredients of offencevicarious liabilityFIR quashing
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the High Court's refusal to quash criminal proceedings against the appellant regarding Case Crime No. 153 of 2016, involving alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant alleged that the appellant's husband accepted money for employment, and the appellant subsequently assaulted the complainant. The core legal question was whether the allegations in the FIR and chargesheet, taken at face value, established the essential ingredients for the offences of cheating and impersonation against the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the allegations regarding inducement and the receipt of money were directed solely at the appellant's husband, not the appellant. Consequently, the Court ruled that the ingredients for cheating under Section 415 and Section 420 were absent. The Court allowed the appeal in part, quashing the proceedings for Sections 419 and 420, while permitting the trial to proceed regarding the remaining offences under Sections 323, 504, and 506. The judgment reaffirms that criminal proceedings should be quashed when the complaint fails to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.

  Questions settled

  • Does a complaint that fails to allege specific acts of inducement against an accused satisfy the essential ingredients for the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860?
  • Can criminal proceedings be partially quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 while allowing other charges to proceed?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqil Zaman alias Aqeel vs The state and another2022 PCRLJ 1576 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-22
  criminal appealqatl-i-amdmaterial improvementsocular and medical contradictionacquittal of co-accuseddelayed post-mortemfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusbenefit of reasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment for qatl-i-amd. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account in the face of material improvements and supplementary statements, contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the effect of co-accused's acquittal on similar allegations, and the evidentiary value of a delayed post-mortem and weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that material improvements and contradictions between the ocular testimony and medical evidence rendered the prosecution witnesses untrustworthy. Applying the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, and noting that co-accused facing identical allegations had already been acquitted, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material improvements in the testimony of an eye-witness to align with medical evidence make the witness untrustworthy?
  • What is the evidentiary effect of a delayed post-mortem examination where prosecution fails to explain the delay?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of a weapon recovery when the ocular account has been disbelieved?
  • Whether an accused can claim acquittal on the basis of parity when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been acquitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqib Ali, Cleaner vs Chief Engineer (Power) Station Mangla Mirpur and 42022 PLC (C.S) 1294 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-05-11
  writ petitionmaintainabilityWAPDAjurisdictionquota policycontingent employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a writ petition filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974, seeking to restrain respondents from making appointments except from District Mirpur pursuant to a policy dated 27.05.2021, and to set aside an impugned advertisement for the post of Cleaner (BPS-2). The petitioner, a contingent-paid employee of WAPDA and a local of District Mirpur, challenged the advertisement combining quotas for District Mirpur and District Jehlum. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 44 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution 1974 against Pakistan WAPDA, an entity established under federal Pakistani law not performing functions connected with the affairs of the State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The High Court held that WAPDA officials do not act in connection with the affairs of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, rendering the writ petition non-maintainable under Article 44. The court laid down that no writ can be issued under Article 44 against authorities or organizations established under the authority of the Government of Pakistan that do not operate under the control of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ petition under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974 be maintained against WAPDA or authorities established under the Government of Pakistan?
  • Whether an employee serving on a contingent basis has locus standi to challenge recruitment advertisements through constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir have jurisdiction to issue a writ against federal statutory bodies operating within its territorial limits but not managing state affairs?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqeela Abid vs Ch. Bashir Ahmad through Legal Heirs and 2 others2022 YLR 675 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-22Read full judgment →
• Aqeel Hussain vs The State and another2022 YLR 999 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-25
  acid attackvitriolagebenefit of doubtocular accountmaterial improvementsacquittal of co-accusedpresumption of innocencefair trialcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the trial court under sections 336, 336-B, and 450 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 7(c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, along with compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt through reliable ocular account, medical evidence, and motive, particularly in view of material contradictions, improvements, and the acquittal of co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular testimony was replete with major improvements and discrepancies, and ran contrary to the initial crime report, rendering it untrustworthy. The court ruled that where the testimony of prosecution witnesses is discarded against acquitted co-accused, a conviction cannot be sustained against another co-accused in the absence of strong, independent corroboration. The court laid down that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to an acquittal as a matter of right, and that the practice of widening the net of implication by falsely involving individuals destroys the veracity of the prosecution case. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the same set of ocular testimony that has been disbelieved for the acquittal of co-accused in the absence of independent corroboration?
  • Does a material and deliberate improvement in the statements of eyewitnesses render their testimony untrustworthy for maintaining a conviction?
  • What is the evidentiary value of medical evidence and motive in a criminal trial when the direct ocular account is found to be unreliable?
  • What is the effect of false implication and widening the net of accused persons on the overall credibility of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Apprehension of Undermining the Criminal Justice System by Persons in Authority. Prima Facie Violation of Article 10a, 25 and 4 of the Constitution vs N/A2022 SCP 124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-27
  Exit Control ListExit From Pakistan (Control) Rulesretrospective legislationconflict of interestcriminal justice systemhigh-profile cases
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon reports filed by the Ministry of Interior, Director General of the Federal Investigation Agency, and Additional Prosecutor General of the National Accountability Bureau regarding the retrospective amendment of the Exit From Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010. The core legal questions involve the legality of retrospective rule-making without proper authorization, the avoidance of conflict of interest by cabinet members, and the removal of names of accused persons from the Exit Control List without statutory consultation. The Court observed that amendments made on 22.04.2022 appeared to be enforced retrospectively without necessary authorization and cabinet approval, and that 174 names in NAB cases were removed from the Exit Control List without consulting NAB authorities. The Court directed the Attorney General and NAB authorities to supply comprehensive information and records regarding beneficiaries, conflict of interest, grounds for dispensing consultation, and high-profile cases handled by the FIA. The matter was relisted for further hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether amendments to the Exit From Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010 can be enforced retrospectively without proper authorization?
  • Does the removal of accused persons' names from the Exit Control List require prior consultation with the National Accountability Bureau authorities?
  • How must conflict of interest be addressed when the Federal Cabinet approves rules that potentially benefit its own members?
  Read full judgment →
• Appellate Jurisdiction vs Shoukat Ali Head Constable and another2022 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 100 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-03-16Read full judgment →
• Anyi Sundy alias Joe vs The State & others2022 PHC 206 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-14Read full judgment →
• Anwar Zaib and Others vs Returning Officer/The Cantonment Executive2022 MLD 1951 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-17Read full judgment →
• Anwar Khan & others vs Fozia Khan & another2022 SHC 402 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-13Read full judgment →
• Anwar Baig vs Muhammad Imran Khan and 2 others2022 MLD 775 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-02Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali Khaskheli and another vs The State2022 MLD 570 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-13
  post-arrest bailmurderrobberyprohibitory clausetentative assessmentdelay in FIRdestruction of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two accused persons charged with murder, robbery, and destruction of evidence in Crime No. 63 of 2019. The applicants sought bail, arguing false implication, lack of eyewitnesses, delayed FIR, and that the recovery was planted. The prosecution opposed the application, highlighting that the accused were nominated in the FIR with specific roles, the offence carries capital punishment, and the case falls within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law. The Court held that while there was a four-day delay in lodging the FIR, this did not mitigate the gravity of the offence where a life was lost. Upon tentative assessment, the Court found sufficient material connecting the applicants to the crime, noting that eyewitnesses had implicated the accused in the murder and the subsequent disposal of the body. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, ruling that the case falls within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that the applicants failed to establish grounds for extraordinary relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does a four-day delay in lodging an FIR automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail in a murder case?
  • Is a bail application in a case involving capital punishment subject to the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a court conduct a deeper appreciation of evidence during the hearing of a post-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Ansar Mehmood Gondal vs The State etc2022 IHC 52 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-01
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausecriminal breach of trustrule of consistencycooperative housing societyillegal allotmentSection 164 statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 05/2022, involving allegations of illegal allotment of a commercial plot designated for amenities by the management of a Cooperative Housing Society. The petitioner, the former President of the society, faced charges under Sections 109, 409, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the allegations and the existence of a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 implicating him in accepting money. The Court held that the offence under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 carries a punishment extending to ten years, placing it within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Finding prima facie evidence of the petitioner's involvement and distinguishing his case from co-accused granted bail, the Court dismissed the petition, establishing that the rule of consistency does not apply when the petitioner's role is distinct and supported by specific incriminating material.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the rule of consistency be applied to grant bail to a co-accused when the petitioner's role is distinct and supported by specific incriminating evidence?
  • Is a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sufficient to establish prima facie involvement for the purpose of refusing bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Anjum Sarwar Butt and another vs Additional District Judge, Gujranwala2022 YLR 1077 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-09Read full judgment →
• Ansar Ahmed Gorar vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2022 SHC 226 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-30
  repatriationabsorption of civil servantspolice establishmentinter-provincial transferseniorityparent departmentSupreme Court binding judgments
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, police personnel originally appointed in the Islamabad Capital Territory, Baluchistan Police, and Pakistan Railways Police and subsequently absorbed into the Sindh Police, challenged an office order issued by the Inspector General of Sindh Police repatriating them to their respective parent departments. The core legal questions involved whether inter-provincial transfer and absorption of police personnel are permissible under the law, whether the impugned repatriation order violates Supreme Court dicta, and whether the Inspector General of Sindh Police was competent to issue the order in compliance with apex court judgments. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the absorption of personnel across provinces and different police establishments was declared illegal by the Supreme Court in landmark judgments such as Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456). The court held that no provision in law permits inter-provincial or inter-establishment transfer and absorption of police officers, that the petitioners possessed no vested right to remain in the Sindh Police, and that executive authorities are constitutionally bound under Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution to enforce Supreme Court judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether inter-provincial transfer and permanent absorption of police personnel from other police establishments into the Sindh Police is permissible under the law?
  • Does the Inspector General of Police have the authority to repatriate unlawfully absorbed police personnel in compliance with judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Whether police personnel absorbed from other provinces and federal units can claim a vested right or invoke the principle of locus poenitentiae against repatriation ordered pursuant to apex court verdicts?
  • Does the expiration of a civil servant's lien with their parent department impede their repatriation following the judicial declaration that their initial absorption was illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Anjum Latif vs The State, etc2022 LHC 2931 · Lahore High Court
  deaf and dumb witnessbenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder referenceprocedural safeguardsforensic evidenceinterested witnessSection 161 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions and death sentence awarded by the trial court for murder and causing injuries. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of statements from deaf and dumb witnesses, the impact of belated police statements, and the necessity of independent corroboration when co-accused are acquitted on the same evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court established that recording evidence of deaf and dumb witnesses requires strict procedural compliance, including assessing the witness's intelligence, administering an oath, and ensuring the interpreter is not an interested party or a witness in the case; the Court must record the actual signs, not merely the interpreter's conclusions. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that unexplained delays in recording witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the acquittal of co-accused on identical evidence necessitate the acquittal of the remaining appellants. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • What procedural safeguards must a trial court follow when recording the evidence of a deaf and dumb witness?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence necessitate the acquittal of the remaining accused without independent corroboration?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove the safe transmission of forensic evidence to the laboratory?
  • What is the legal consequence of an unexplained delay in recording witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Anjum Latif vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1365 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-09
  benefit of doubtdeaf and dumb witnessappreciation of evidencecriminal appealmurder referenceforensic evidenceinterested witnesssafe transmission
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentence awarded by the trial court in a murder case. The appellants were convicted under Sections 302(b), 337-A(i), 337-L(ii), 337-F(iv), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of deaf and dumb witnesses whose statements were recorded with the assistance of an interpreter who was also a prosecution witness, the effect of a twenty-five-day delay in recording police statements, the failure to prove safe transmission of crime empties to the forensic laboratory, and the impact of acquitting co-accused on the same evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to multiple lacunae, including the improper recording of evidence from deaf and dumb witnesses, unexplained delays in police statements, and lack of independent corroboration after the acquittal of co-accused. The Court laid down that when examining deaf and dumb witnesses, the trial court must verify the witness's intelligence, record the actual signs/gestures (not just interpretations), and ensure the interpreter is not an interested party or witness in the case.

  Questions settled

  • What is the correct procedure for a trial court to record the evidence of a deaf and dumb witness?
  • Can the conviction of remaining accused be sustained when co-accused have been acquitted on the same set of evidence without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure to prove the safe transmission of crime empties to the forensic laboratory render the forensic report inconsequential?
  • Is a statement recorded by an interpreter who is also a prosecution witness admissible in evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• ANF vs Muhammad Faizan and 2 others2022 PLD Lahore 700 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-22
  joint trialsame transactionAnti-Terrorism CourtSpecial Court CNSjurisdictionjoinder of chargesnarcotics and murderextended jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) to challenge an order passed by the Judge Special Court (CNS), Rawalpindi, which directed that the case file of FIR No. 24/2020—registered for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, and the Anti-Terrorism Act—be remitted to the Anti-Terrorism Court for a joint trial. The core legal question was whether offences arising from a single transaction involving both narcotics recovery and a murder committed during an escape attempt should be tried jointly by an Anti-Terrorism Court or separately by the Special Court (CNS). The Lahore High Court held that where multiple offences by the same accused persons form part of the same transaction based on a continuous thread of purpose and action, they must be tried together. The Court ruled that while the CNS Court possesses exclusive but limited jurisdiction, the Anti-Terrorism Court has extended jurisdiction under sections 17 and 21-M of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 to try connected offences. The appeal was consequently dismissed, and the Court ordered a joint trial before the Anti-Terrorism Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether multiple offences committed during the same transaction can be tried jointly by an Anti-Terrorism Court when some of the offences fall under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • What constitutes the same transaction under Section 235 and Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the Special Court established under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 possess limited or extended exclusive jurisdiction?
  • Can an Anti-Terrorism Court try non-scheduled offences together with scheduled offences if they are connected as part of the same continuous transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• ANF vs Muhammad Faizan & 2 others2022 LHC 3528 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-22
  joint trialsame transactionAnti-Terrorism Court jurisdictionControl of Narcotic Substances Actjoinder of chargesexclusive jurisdictioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order by the Special Court (CNS), Rawalpindi, which remitted a case involving offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to the Anti-Terrorism Court for a joint trial. The core legal question was whether offences arising from the same transaction, involving different special enactments, could be tried jointly and which forum possessed the requisite jurisdiction. The Court held that the offences, stemming from a single raid where narcotics were recovered and an official was killed during the accused's escape, constituted a single transaction characterized by continuity of action and purpose. Applying Sections 235 and 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Court determined that joint trial was necessary to avoid conflicting decisions. Furthermore, it ruled that while the CNS Court possesses limited exclusive jurisdiction, the Anti-Terrorism Court holds extended jurisdiction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, allowing it to try connected offences alongside scheduled offences. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the joint trial before the Anti-Terrorism Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 be tried jointly in a single trial?
  • What constitutes the 'same transaction' for the purpose of joinder of charges under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the Anti-Terrorism Court possess the jurisdiction to try non-scheduled offences connected to a scheduled offence?
  • Is the jurisdiction of a Special Court constituted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 limited or extended in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Aneela Irshad vs Additional Sessions Judge and 3 others etc2022 PLJ Lahore 325 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-07Read full judgment →
• Amna Arshad vs Government of the Punjab etc2022 LHC 3214, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1523 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-10
  reasonable accommodationpersons with disabilitiestransfer policyfundamental rightsservice matterswrit jurisdictionmainstreaming
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a visually impaired Senior Special Education Teacher, challenged the rejection of her transfer request to Lahore, where her husband is posted. The Secretary Special Education had rejected her application citing a general ban on transfers and the Transfer Policy-2020, which requires three years of service at the current station. The core legal question was whether the state is obligated to provide 'reasonable accommodation' to persons with disabilities in employment matters, notwithstanding rigid departmental transfer policies. The Court held that while transfer matters generally fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, this case involved the interpretation of fundamental rights concerning persons with disabilities, rendering the petition maintainable. The Court emphasized that the State is under a constitutional obligation to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities to ensure their mainstreaming and equality. The Court directed the Chief Minister to expeditiously consider proposed amendments to the transfer policy to better accommodate the needs of disabled employees, effectively mandating a more sensitive, case-specific approach to disability-related employment barriers.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 to hear a service matter involving the fundamental rights of a person with a disability?
  • Does the principle of 'reasonable accommodation' require the State to adjust employment policies for persons with disabilities?
  • Are international human rights conventions, such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, enforceable in domestic courts even in the absence of specific implementing legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Shahzad vs Deputy Commissioner, etc2022 LHC 6091, 2022 [M] CLR 1613 · Lahore High Court · 2022-08-12Read full judgment →
• Amjad Saeed & another vs Muhammad Saeed and 2 others2022 LHC 4375 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-24Read full judgment →
• Amjad Mustafa Malik vs Director General, National Accountability Bureau &2022 [M] CLR 131 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Amjad Khan vs The State2022 MLD 520 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-04
  post-arrest bailCNS Actrecovery of charasdelay in trialofficial witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Amjad Khan under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, seeking enlargement on bail after being apprehended with 2200 grams of charas. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the recovery of narcotics and the circumstances of the case. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail because the Investigating Officer retired, the prosecution failed to ascertain the status of cases shown in the CRO despite court directions, and no charge had been framed for over a year despite submission of the challan, combined with the fact that all witnesses are official police personnel. The key principle laid down is that prolonged incarceration without framing of a charge for over a year, along with procedural failures by the prosecution and reliance solely on official witnesses, warrants the grant of post-arrest bail in narcotics matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 when the trial has been delayed and no charge has been framed for over a year?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to identify the status of cases in the CRO and the retirement of the Investigating Officer constitute sufficient grounds for granting bail?
  • Can an accused be kept in jail indefinitely in a case where all witnesses are official police personnel and trial proceedings are stalled?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hussain vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 653 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-08
  post-arrest bailtheftprohibitory clausecriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal petition filed by Amjad Hussain seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 182/2021 registered under Sections 458, 380, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Taunsa Sharif, D.G. Khan, relating to the theft of cattle. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given that the primary offence under Section 380 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the submission of the challan, and the rule that bail in such offences is a norm while refusal is an exception. The court held that since the punishment for Section 380 does not attract the prohibitory clause, investigation is complete with the submission of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and a co-accused has already been granted bail, the petitioner's continued detention serves no useful purpose. The petition was accordingly allowed, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the submission of a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the continuous detention of an accused unnecessary?
  • Can bail be granted to an accused when a co-accused facing similar allegations has already been released on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hussain vs Nazir Ahmad & others2022 SCP 306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-24
  review jurisdictionSupreme Court Rules 1980substitution of counselspecial leavefrivolous petitionlegal ethicsadvocate's certificate
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns applications filed under Order XXVI, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, seeking special leave to engage a new Advocate for filing review petitions after the original counsel refused to act. The core legal question was whether the refusal of the original counsel to file a review petition constitutes sufficient ground to grant special leave for substituting counsel. The Supreme Court rejected the applications, holding that the reason provided was insufficient. The Court emphasized that review jurisdiction is limited and not a rehearing of the main case; the original counsel, having argued the case, is best positioned to evaluate the merits and the grounds for review. The Court established that special leave to substitute counsel in a review petition is only granted in cases of unavoidable circumstances. Where an original counsel refuses to file a review, it may indicate that the petition lacks merit. Consequently, the Court will not facilitate the filing of frivolous petitions by allowing the substitution of counsel without valid, unavoidable reasons, thereby upholding the integrity of the review process.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant special leave to substitute an Advocate in a review petition?
  • Is the refusal of an original counsel to file a review petition a sufficient ground for the Court to grant special leave to engage a new Advocate?
  • What is the scope of the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the role of the original counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hameed Gondal vs Raja Muhammad Ilyas2022 IHC 204 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-11Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ghafoor Khan vs Waseem Ahmed Malik2022 IHC 116 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-07Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa thorugh Chief Secretary2022 PHC 516 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Amjad Ali vs Agricultural Development Bank now ZTB and others2022 LHC 1763 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-24Read full judgment →
• Amir Zeb vs Mst. Shamrozai and Others2022 PHC 652 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-11Read full judgment →
• Amir Ullah son of Abdul Aziz vs Director "Zamung Kor", Charsadda road2022 PHC 472 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Amir Tufil vs Abbas2022 CLC 2059 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-17Read full judgment →
• Amir Shahzad etc vs Federation of Pakistan etc2022 LHC 2290 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-22
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilityNADRA employeespromotion policystatutory rulesnon-statutory regulationsterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by regular employees of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) seeking a direction to respondents to consider them for promotion in terms of the promotion policy notification dated 22.01.2004, and challenging fresh recruitments against promotion quota posts. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable for the enforcement of NADRA's service regulations and promotion policies, which were framed under Section 45 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that while rules framed by the Federal Government under Section 44 of the Ordinance possess statutory force, the regulations and promotion policies framed by the Authority under Section 45 without Federal Government approval are non-statutory in nature. Relying on binding precedents from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Court held that the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked for the enforcement of non-statutory service rules or policies of a corporate body.

  Questions settled

  • Whether regulations framed by NADRA under Section 45 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 are statutory or non-statutory?
  • Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan be maintained for the enforcement of non-statutory service regulations or promotion policies of NADRA?
  • Do rules framed by the Federal Government under Section 44 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 possess statutory force?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Raheem S/o Muhammad Raheem Boneri vs Muhammad Bux @ Babu2022 SHC 372, 2024 PCRLJ 524 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-05
  dacoitypolice encounterhostile witnessrecovery of crime weaponspolice official testimonycriminal appealfirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Sindh High Court challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under Section 395/397 Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and Section 25 of the Sindh Arms Act 2013, arising from an incident involving dacoity, a police encounter, and firearms recovery. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value of a hostile complainant who admits to his signatures on recovery memos but fails to identify the accused at trial, and whether a conviction can be sustained based solely on the testimony of police eye-witnesses and corroborative recovery evidence. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions, holding that the testimony of a hostile witness must be evaluated alongside other reliable evidence, and that the testimony of police officials, when credible and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court reaffirmed the principle that minor discrepancies do not vitiate a prosecution case and that the unblemished testimonies of police officials and recovery witnesses are as reliable as private witnesses unless mala fides are proven.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be maintained if the complainant is declared hostile regarding the identity of the accused at trial?
  • Are the testimonies of police officials as credible as private witnesses in a criminal trial?
  • What is the evidentiary value of minor contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses?
  • Whether recovery of robbed articles and crime weapons from the spot along with firearm injuries sustained by the accused sufficiently corroborates the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Manzoor vs Naeem Javed etc2022 PLJ Lahore 149 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-15Read full judgment →
• Amir Hussain vs Jamaluddin and 4 others2022 YLR 1247 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-29Read full judgment →
• Amir Hayat vs The State2022 LHC 4393 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-06
  criminal misconductcriminal breach of trustmisappropriation of fundstemporary embezzlementdisciplinary proceedingspublic servantPEEDA Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of a public servant for criminal misconduct regarding the delayed deposit of government funds. The appellant, a cashier, retained public money for a period before depositing the full amount prior to the registration of the FIR. The core legal question was whether such temporary retention constitutes criminal misconduct under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, or criminal breach of trust under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The Court held that to establish misappropriation, the prosecution must prove the funds were used for unauthorized purposes, which was absent here. The Court determined that temporary retention of government money, without evidence of actual misuse or dishonest conversion, does not satisfy the ingredients of criminal offences. Consequently, the conviction was set aside. The Court emphasized that while such conduct may warrant disciplinary action under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, it does not automatically attract criminal liability, particularly when the funds are restored before criminal proceedings commence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the temporary retention of government funds by a public servant constitute criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947?
  • Is the element of entrustment required to establish criminal breach of trust under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Can a public servant be criminally prosecuted for misappropriation if the funds were deposited before the registration of the FIR?
  • Does the definition of misconduct under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, encompass the temporary retention of government money?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer Muhammad vs The State2022 PHC 594 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-26
  confiscation of vehiclenarcoticsbona fide ownerremandopportunity of hearingspecial court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Special Court, Shabqadar, which ordered the confiscation of a motorcar in favour of the State following the conviction of the accused for transporting narcotics. The appellant, claiming to be the bona fide owner of the vehicle, contended that the car was rented out through a rental service and used in the crime without his knowledge. The Peshawar High Court examined the procedure for confiscation under the provincial narcotics law. It observed that under Section 34B of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, the Special Court is mandated to provide an opportunity of hearing and allow the production of evidence to any person claiming a right to the seized article before ordering its confiscation. Since the trial court failed to observe this mandatory procedure despite the appellant's ownership claim, the High Court set aside the confiscation order and remanded the matter for proper inquiry and evidence recording.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Special Court can order the confiscation of a vehicle used in a narcotics offence without providing an opportunity of hearing to a third-party claimant?
  • What is the mandatory procedure to be followed under Section 34B of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019 before ordering the confiscation of a seized article?
  • Can a confiscation order stand if the trial court fails to record the evidence of a person claiming ownership of the seized vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer Bakhsh vs Additional Sessions Judge and others2022 PCRLJ 1188 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-24
  ZinaIddahIrregular marriageKhulaJustice of PeaceCriminal procedureProtection of Women Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order of the ex-officio Justice of Peace dismissing his application under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which sought the registration of a criminal case against his former wife and her new husband for the offence of Zina. The petitioner alleged that the respondent wife contracted a new marriage immediately after obtaining a Khula decree, without observing the mandatory Iddah period, thereby rendering the marriage void. The core legal question was whether a marriage contracted during the Iddah period constitutes a void (batil) marriage amounting to Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The Court held that such a marriage is irregular (fasid) rather than void (batil). Furthermore, the Court clarified that following the Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act, 2006, which removed the word 'validly' from Section 4 of the Ordinance, parties to an irregular marriage cannot be prosecuted for Zina. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's application, establishing that an irregular marriage does not constitute a cognizable offence under the Zina Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does a marriage contracted during the Iddah period constitute a void (batil) marriage or an irregular (fasid) marriage under Islamic law?
  • Can parties to an irregular (fasid) marriage be prosecuted for the offence of Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • What is the legal effect of the omission of the word 'validly' from Section 4 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 by the Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act, 2006?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer Ali vs S.E. West Circles Motor Canal, etc2022 LHC 6212, 2022 [M] CLR 1345, 2022 KLR Civil Cases 380 · Lahore High Court · 2022-08-04Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs The Collector of Customs (Appeals) and 2 others2022 PTD (Trib.) 1360 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2021-10-18Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Memon vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and another2022 PCRLJ 1217 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-07
  Exit Control ListRight to travelFundamental rightsNational Accountability OrdinancePardonConstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a builder, sought the removal of his name from the Exit Control List (ECL), arguing that his inclusion was unjustified following his full cooperation with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in a corruption investigation, which included surrendering land and receiving a pardon. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s right to travel could be restricted based on the apprehension that he might abscond and fail to testify in future proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioner’s fundamental right to travel could not be curtailed on mere speculative fears of abscondence, especially given his strong social and business ties in Pakistan and his demonstrated cooperation. The Court observed that the provisions regarding pardon under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, do not inherently bar travel. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, ordering the removal of the petitioner's name from the ECL subject to the furnishing of a solvent surety, emphasizing that the state has legal mechanisms to secure attendance if necessary.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of a pardon by the Chairman NAB under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 automatically restrict the beneficiary's right to travel abroad?
  • Can the name of an individual be retained on the Exit Control List based solely on a speculative apprehension that they might not return for trial?
  • What is the legal recourse available to the National Accountability Bureau if a person who has been granted a pardon fails to appear for trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Khan vs Hospital Director, KTH (Mti), Peshawar & others2022 SCP 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-12
  upgradationpromotionvested rightservice rulesnon-joinder of necessary partiescivil petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal was directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, whereby the petitioner's claim for upgradation from BPS-9 to BPS-17 was dismissed. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to retrospective upgradation to BPS-17 at par with another employee and whether upgradation constitutes a vested right or promotion. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under the relevant service rules, and his petition was also hit by the non-joinder of necessary senior employees. The Court laid down key principles clarifying that upgradation is not a vested right but stems from a policy decision or restructuring to alleviate stagnation, conferring a higher pay scale without changing duties, which is distinct from promotion involving advancement in rank. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Is upgradation of a post considered a vested right for an employee?
  • What is the distinction between promotion and upgradation of a post?
  • Can an employee claim upgradation with retrospective effect without fulfilling eligibility requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah and 2 others vs The State2022 YLR 1681 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-13
  benefit of doubtdelayed FIRextra-judicial confessionsafe custody of case propertyanti-terrorismillegal arms possessionappellate jurisdictioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions of the appellants for murder, attempted murder, and illegal arms possession under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The core legal questions concern the evidentiary value of a delayed FIR, the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions, and the necessity of proving the safe custody of forensic evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the murder charges beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the FIR was delayed by over 29 hours without explanation, the ocular evidence was based on hearsay and dishonest improvements, and the extra-judicial confessions were inadmissible due to a lack of independent corroboration. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transit of the recovered weapons. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants of the terrorism and murder charges. However, regarding the illegal arms possession charges, the Court maintained the convictions but reduced the sentences to the time already served, citing the appellants' status as first-time offenders. The judgment reaffirms that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR without a plausible explanation justify the acquittal of the accused?
  • Is a confession made before the police admissible in terrorism cases without independent corroborative evidence?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the safe custody and transit of forensic samples entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone for first-time offenders?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali Khan Jadoon vs Election Commission of Pakistan, through, Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad and 05 others2022 PHC 208, 2022 YLR 2325 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-09Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah vs Tufail Ahmad and 3 others2022 CLC 1245 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-08Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah Shah etc vs The State, etc2022 LHC 2904, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1342 · Lahore High Court
  murderbenefit of doubtacquittal of co-accusedmedical evidencedelayed post-mortemappellant convictioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellants by the trial court under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference and a revision petition for sentence enhancement. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, considering discrepancies in ocular and medical evidence, withheld injured witnesses, unproven motive, and the acquittal of multiple co-accused on the same set of evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case due to delayed post-mortem examinations, inconclusive weapon recoveries, and lack of independent corroboration following the acquittal of co-accused. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants on the basis of the benefit of the doubt, dismissed the revision, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The key principle laid down is that a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's evidence entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and the acquittal of the majority of co-accused on identical evidence necessitates strong independent corroboration to sustain remaining convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction of remaining accused can be sustained without strong independent corroboration when the majority of co-accused are acquitted on the same set of evidence?
  • Does an unexplained delay in conducting a post-mortem examination create a serious dent in the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right if a single reasonable doubt appears in the prosecution evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of weapon recovery when safe transmission to the forensic laboratory is not established?
  Read full judgment →
• Aman Khan vs The State and Another2022 PHC 660 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs The State and 3 others2022 YLR 2486 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-25
  charge amendmentframing of chargecriminal procedurecognizable offenceFIRtrial court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal revision challenge regarding the amendment of a charge sheet in a case involving allegations of theft and physical assault between neighbors. The complainant sought to add sections 337-A(i), 337(ii), 459, and 460 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to the existing charge under sections 457 and 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court initially dismissed the application, and the appellate court partially allowed it, adding only the hurt-related sections while excluding the sections pertaining to grievous hurt or violence during house-trespass. The High Court examined the record and noted that the precise sequence of events—specifically whether the assault and theft occurred simultaneously or separately—remained ambiguous and required evidentiary determination. The Court held that at the charge-framing stage, the court should not conclusively rule out potential offences if the evidence suggests they might be applicable. Consequently, the Court ordered the inclusion of all requested sections in the charge, directing the trial court to determine the veracity of these allegations based on evidence produced during the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court include additional sections in a charge if the evidence at the initial stage does not conclusively rule out those offences?
  • Is an FIR considered conclusive proof of the allegations contained therein for the purpose of framing a charge?
  • Should a court determine the applicability of specific penal sections before or after the production of evidence at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs FPSC through Chairman and another2022 PLC (C.S.) 92 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-26
  service tribunalinterview panelviva vocepast and closed transactionsubjective testfederal public service commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal assails the order passed by the Federal Public Service Commission dismissing the appellant's review petition against the rejection of his representation regarding the Section Officers Promotional Exam-2012. The core legal question is whether the composition of the interview panel rendered the interview process illegal and whether a candidate can challenge it after participating and failing. The court held that the appellant participated in the interview without objection and raised the issue after more than a year upon securing low marks, rendering the matter a past and closed transaction; furthermore, an interview is a subjective test and a court of law cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Interview Committee. The key principle laid down is that a candidate cannot turn around to challenge the composition of an interview panel after remaining unsuccessful in the examination, and courts will not interfere with the subjective assessment and evaluation of candidates by expert viva voce boards.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate can challenge the composition of an interview panel after participating in the interview and failing to qualify?
  • Can a court of law substitute its own opinion for the marks awarded by a Viva Voce Board or Interview Committee?
  • Does a belated challenge to an interview process after the posts have already been filled constitute a past and closed transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain son of Bakht Zamin Khan resident of Sanaam, Tehsil Adenzai, District Dir Lower vs The State through Advocate General2022 PHC 90 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain etc vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 658 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-14
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtocular and medical conflictexit and entry woundcriminal appealacquittalweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Altaf Hussain, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the qatl-i-amd of the deceased, alongside connected acquittals and a murder reference. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically addressing conflicts between ocular and medical evidence, the credibility of injured witnesses, the dual-edged nature of the alleged motive, and the reliability of weapon recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that material contradictions between the eyewitness accounts and the medical testimony regarding entry and exit wounds shattered the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, creating a strong and reasonable doubt regarding the participation of the accused. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitted the appellant, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the complainant's appeal against acquittal. The key legal principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of an accused entitles them to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding injury attribution create sufficient doubt to warrant an accused's acquittal?
  • Does the mere presence of an injury on an injured witness automatically establish their truthfulness?
  • How does a motive involving the previous registration of a criminal case operate in the evaluation of criminal liability?
  • Is a weapon recovery credible when the investigating officer fails to specify the place of recovery and the preparation of the recovery parcel?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain and others vs Mst. Saban and others2022 CLC 563 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-25Read full judgment →
• Altaf Ahmad vs Muhammad Anwar and 04 others2022 LHC 8093 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-26Read full judgment →
• Almita Ishtiaq and other vs Principal Government Medical College2022 PLJ AJ&K 114 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited vs Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore & others2022 LHC 7421 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-20Read full judgment →
• Allauddin Malik vs Late Dr. Abdul Jalil through Legal Heirs and 5 others2022 PLD Sindh 147 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-25Read full judgment →
• Allama Iqbal Open University vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 IHC 128 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-06Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar vs The State and another2022 MLD 350 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-02
  attempted murderfirearm injuriesmedical evidenceocular accountsubstitution of accusedcriminal revisionnon-vital part
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision arises from concurrent findings of lower courts convicting the petitioner under Section 324 and Section 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for firing at and injuring the complainant. The core legal question centered on whether the ocular account was consistent with the medical evidence and whether the ingredients of attempted murder were established given that the injuries were on non-vital parts of the body. The Lahore High Court held that the repeated firearm injuries, corroborated by medical testimony and corresponding holes in the victim's clothing, firmly established the petitioner's guilt, and the fact that the shots hit non-vital parts fortuitously does not negate the applicability of Section 324 when multiple shots are fired. The court affirmed the conviction, laying down that the absence of blackening or burning around entry wounds does not contradict the prosecution story when the victim was wearing layered clothing and was not a static target, and that substitution of real culprits is a rare phenomenon.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of burning or blackening around firearm entry wounds contradicts the prosecution ocular account when the victim was wearing clothing with corresponding holes?
  • Does an offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fail when injuries are inflicted on non-vital parts of the body?
  • Can substitution of the real culprit by the complainant be readily accepted without plausible motive for sparing actual offenders?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya vs The State, etc2022 SCP 180, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 986, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 541 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-22
  statutory baildelay in conclusion of trialhardened desperate or dangerous criminalpost-arrest bailtentative assessmentprevious criminal record
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the denial of post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was accused of offences including cutting the noses of his bhabi and her alleged paramour. The core legal question concerned whether an accused person seeking statutory bail on the ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial can be classified as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1), CrPC, solely on the facts and circumstances of the case, or if a previous criminal record is a mandatory prerequisite. The Supreme Court held that a previous criminal record is not mandatory; an opinion regarding the character of the accused as a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal can be formed by the court tentatively based on the facts and circumstances of the case, including the gravity, nature, and manner of the offence, the role attributed, and the societal impact. The court concluded that the gruesome nature of the petitioner's act justified denying him the benefit of statutory bail, dismissed the petition, and directed an expedited trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person may be treated as a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) CrPC on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case without a previous criminal record?
  • Is a previous criminal record a mandatory prerequisite for forming an opinion that an accused is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal for the purpose of denying statutory bail?
  • What factors may a court consider when making a tentative assessment of the character of an accused under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) CrPC?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya vs State etcPLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-22
  post-arrest bailstatutory bailtrial delayhardened criminalcriminal procedurefourth provisobail denial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the denial of post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial under the third proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether an accused must possess a previous criminal record to be classified as a "hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal" under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby disqualifying them from statutory bail. The Supreme Court held that a prior criminal record is not a mandatory prerequisite for such a classification. Instead, the Court may form a tentative opinion based on the facts and circumstances of the current case, including the nature of the offense, the manner of its commission, and the potential threat to society. Consequently, the Court affirmed the denial of bail, noting that the petitioner's violent conduct justified his classification as a dangerous criminal.

  Questions settled

  • Must an accused have a previous criminal record to be classified as a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a court determine an accused is a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal based solely on the facts and circumstances of the current case?
  • Does the term 'criminal' in the fourth proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, require a prior conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasai (deceased) through L.Rs. and others vs Khuda Bukhsh2022 YLR 1598 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Allah Rakha, etc vs Atta Muhammad, etc2022 LHC 3466 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-30Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 620 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-05
  circumstantial evidencemurderbenefit of doubtchain of custodypost-mortem delayprivate complaintcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under a private complaint for murder arising from FIR No. 323 registered at Police Station Sadar Khanewal. The core legal question revolves around the sufficiency, reliability, and proper appreciation of circumstantial evidence in a criminal trial where direct evidence is absent. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances connecting the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt, noting severe contradictions regarding the time of recovery, police arrival, medical evidence delays, and discredited witness testimonies. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's judgment, allowed the appeal, and acquitted the appellant, reiterating that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution and any gap in the chain of circumstantial evidence must result in the benefit of doubt being extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • What are the core legal principles governing the appreciation and reliability of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials?
  • Does a delay in conducting a post-mortem examination raise a strong possibility that the FIR was not lodged at the stated time?
  • What is the consequence of a broken link in the chain of circumstantial evidence in a capital charge?
  • Whether the prosecution must prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt without shifting the burden of proof?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Deputy Postmaster General (Admn), Office of the Postmaster2022 SCP 312 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  misappropriationdismissal from servicecompulsory retirementdisciplinary proceedingsservice tribunalpublic moneymens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the service appeal of the petitioner, a Postmaster dismissed from service following an inquiry into allegations of misappropriating public funds through bogus withdrawals. The core legal question was whether the penalty of dismissal from service for misappropriating public money should be converted into compulsory retirement on the grounds of long service tenure and the prior deposit of the embezzled amount. The Supreme Court held that in cases of proven fraud and embezzlement of public funds, long service and the subsequent refund of the misappropriated amount do not constitute mitigating circumstances, and the courts or tribunals will not ordinarily substitute the punishment awarded by the competent authority. The Court laid down the principle that showing undue leniency in heinous matters of financial corruption would destroy the civil service structure, and that the misappropriation of public funds cannot be treated as a minor misconduct.

  Questions settled

  • Whether long service tenure and the refund of misappropriated amounts can be treated as mitigating circumstances to convert a dismissal from service into compulsory retirement?
  • Can a court or tribunal substitute its own finding and mitigate a punishment awarded by a competent authority in cases of financial misappropriation?
  • Does the refund of misappropriated public money vitiate the gross misconduct of embezzlement committed by a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →