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.

• Allah Ditta vs Amjad Iqbal etc2022 KLR Civil Cases 38 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-16Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Ali Shah (deceased) through Legal Heirs & others2022 LHC 8152, 2024 CLC 106 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-08Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and others vs Yaqoob Ali and others2022 SCMR 1687 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  specific performanceagreement to sellsignature of vendeeagricultural loanconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a dispute over the specific performance of a registered agreement to sell dated June 26, 1986. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, and the first appellate court dismissed the defendant's appeal, but the Lahore High Court allowed the defendant's regular second appeal and dismissed the suit. The core legal questions involve whether a registered agreement to sell is rendered invalid merely because it lacks the vendee's signature, and whether a property subject to an agricultural loan charge can be legally sold. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the concurrent findings and decrees of the lower courts. The Court held that a valid contract need not be signed by the vendee where acceptance is otherwise established, and that property under a charge can be legally sold subject to that charge.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-signing of an agreement to sell by the vendee render the agreement invalid?
  • Can a property burdened with an agricultural loan charge be legally sold?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts can be disturbed in second appeal without strong legal grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and others vs Muhammad Anwar and others2022 YLR 336 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-06Read full judgment →
• Allah Bachaya alias Bachoo vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 635 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-21
  narcotic possessionforensic analysissampling protocolcriminal appealconviction modificationevidentiary weightcharas recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 4100 grams of charas. The core legal question concerns whether the entire quantity of recovered narcotics can be attributed to the accused when the recovery consisted of multiple pieces and samples were improperly drawn and mixed into a single parcel. The High Court held that because the prosecution failed to establish that the entire bulk was tested, only the weight of the sample actually transmitted to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency could be legally attributed to the appellant. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction under Section 9(c) and substituted it with a conviction under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The key principle laid down is that where narcotic substances are recovered in multiple pieces, the prosecution must strictly adhere to forensic sampling protocols; failure to do so limits the evidentiary weight of the recovery to the specific quantity of the sample analyzed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the entire bulk of a narcotic recovery be attributed to an accused if the samples were improperly drawn from multiple pieces?
  • Does the failure to follow proper sampling protocols for narcotics require the reduction of a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 sustainable when only the weight of the forensic sample is proven?
  Read full judgment →
• All Residents of Katishu through Representatives and another vs Ahliyan2022 MLD 1803 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-11-05Read full judgment →
• All Pakistan Textile Mills Association (Aptma) and others vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2022 PLJ Lahore 63 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• All Pakistan Solvent Extractors Association & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2022 SHC 190 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-11Read full judgment →
• Aliya Jabeen vs Muhammad Ashfaq and another2022 CLC 1253 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-09-01Read full judgment →
• Ali Zar vs The State and another2022 P Cr. L J 240 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-21
  criminal revisionappellate judgmentspeaking orderprocedural requirementsjudicial reasoningremandCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the appellate judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, which upheld the petitioner's conviction under sections 279, 320, 427, and 337-G of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the appellate judgment met the mandatory procedural requirements for a valid judgment under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court held that the impugned judgment was legally deficient because it failed to articulate the points for determination, failed to provide a reasoned analysis of the arguments presented by both sides, and lacked the necessary transparency and depth required of a judicial decision. The Court emphasized that a judgment must be a speaking order that clearly explains the reasons for the decision to the parties and the public. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment for non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which constitutes an incurable illegality, and remanded the case for a de novo decision by the appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential requirements for a valid judgment by an appellate court under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a curable irregularity?
  • Is a judgment that fails to articulate points for determination and provide reasoned analysis legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher Bangulani & another vs The State2022 SHC 120 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ali Shah S/O Zareen Khan & Another vs The State2022 SHC 48 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-23
  right of cross-examinationprocedural irregularityfailure of justiceremandcriminal trialadmissibility of evidencemashir
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction for murder. The core legal question was whether the trial court's failure to record the cross-examination of a key prosecution witness (a mashir of arrest and recovery) and the failure to properly cross-examine the medical officer constituted a fatal procedural irregularity amounting to a failure of justice. The High Court held that the right to cross-examination is a fundamental and valuable right, not a mere formality, and is essential for ascertaining the truth. The court determined that when a witness is not cross-examined, their testimony is generally inadmissible against the accused. Because the trial court failed to ensure this right or provide reasons for its omission, the proceedings were deemed flawed. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a de novo trial, directing the trial court to allow cross-examination of the relevant witnesses, record fresh statements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and decide the case afresh.

  Questions settled

  • Is the evidence of a prosecution witness admissible if the accused was denied the opportunity to cross-examine them?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to ensure the cross-examination of a key witness constitute a failure of justice requiring a remand?
  • Is the right to cross-examine a prosecution witness a fundamental right in criminal proceedings?
  • Can a trial court rely on the testimony of a witness who was not cross-examined to sustain a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Saeed Wahla vs Capital Development Authority through Chairman, Islamabad and others2022 CLC 1132 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-23Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza vs The State and others2022 SCMR 1223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-06
  post-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustco-accused statementfurther inquiryprohibitory clauseno recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for criminal breach of trust. The prosecution alleged that the complainant's vehicle was misappropriated, with a co-accused claiming he had handed the vehicle over to the petitioner. The core legal question was whether a post-arrest bail could be granted where the only incriminating material against the accused was the statement of a co-accused, and no recovery was effected. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail, holding that the statement of a co-accused is per se inadmissible in evidence. The Court observed that the essential ingredients of Section 406, namely entrustment and dishonest misappropriation with mens rea, were completely absent as there was no independent evidence linking the petitioner to the offence. Furthermore, since no recovery was made during physical remand and the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the case required further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Is the bare statement of a co-accused sufficient to deny post-arrest bail in the absence of independent corroborative evidence?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to attract the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted where no recovery has been made from the accused and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza vs State and othersPLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-21
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryfirearm injurydelay in FIRintent to killstatutory liberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 324, 440, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the delayed FIR, discrepancy in the weapon alleged versus the medical evidence of a pellet injury, a single shot fired at a non-vital part, lack of weapon recovery, and the period already spent incarcerated. The Court held that discrepancies regarding the nature of the weapon versus the injury, coupled with the single shot to a non-vital part and lack of weapon recovery, bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, converted the petition into an appeal, and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the weapon alleged in the FIR and the medical dimensions of the injury justify granting post-arrest bail?
  • Whether firing a single shot at a non-vital part of the body without repetition brings a case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the benefit of doubt arising from inconsistencies in the prosecution version be extended to an accused person at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza & others vs The Secretary, National Food Security & Research, etc2022 IHC 14 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-08Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs The State, etc2022 KLR Criminal Cases 109 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-09Read full judgment →
• Ali Naveed Shaikh through Attorney and 25 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of National Health Services Regulations and Coordination, Islamabad and 2 others2022 YLR 1504 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-02Read full judgment →
• Ali Mukhtar Chaudhry vs Inspector General of Police, etc2022 LHC 3647 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-25
  illegal detentionhabeas corpuspersonal bondpolice custodyMaintenance of Public Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed concerning the alleged detention of several individuals by police authorities. Upon the Court's inquiry, the Capital City Police Officer, Lahore, appeared and submitted a report clarifying that only two individuals, Hamza Butt and Bahadar Khan, were detained under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, while the remaining alleged detainees were neither required nor held in custody. The Capital City Police Officer provided an assurance to the Court that all detainees, including those not specifically named in the petition, would be released upon furnishing an undertaking or personal bond. The petitioner's counsel accepted this proposed mechanism for the release of the detainees. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition based on this undertaking and the mechanism established for the release of the individuals in question.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition concerning alleged illegal detention be disposed of based on an undertaking provided by police authorities?
  • Is the release of detainees permissible upon the furnishing of a personal bond as assured by the Capital City Police Officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs The State2022 SHC 258 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-03
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRcontradictory evidenceacquittaleye-witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Matiari, convicting the appellants for murder and attempted murder while acquitting co-accused. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant delays in lodging the FIR and recording witness statements, inconsistent testimonies, delayed recovery of weapons, and the partial rejection of eyewitness testimony regarding co-accused. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring contradictions, delayed police procedures, unverified evidence, and lack of independent corroboration where co-accused were already acquitted on the same evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, extended the benefit of the doubt, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delayed recording of statements of prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reduces its evidentiary value unless plausibly explained?
  • Can eyewitnesses disbelieved regarding some co-accused be relied upon to convict other accused without independent corroboration?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle the accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  • What is the legal inference of non-examination of a material prosecution witness under Article 129 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Khan vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 690 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-26
  post-arrest bailnarcoticscomplainant as investigating officerindependent witnesseschemical analysis delayfurther probeControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns the applicant's request for post-arrest release in a narcotics case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the alleged recovery of 4600 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the prosecution's reliance solely on official witnesses, the complainant acting as the investigating officer, and the absence of independent witnesses. The Court held that the case required further probe, thereby granting bail. The ratio emphasizes that while evidence from official witnesses is admissible, it requires minute scrutiny when no independent witnesses are associated despite the availability of the public in a populated area. Furthermore, the Court noted that the complainant acting as the investigating officer, combined with an unexplained delay in sending samples for chemical analysis and the applicant's claim of prior abduction, created sufficient grounds for further inquiry. Consequently, the Court admitted the applicant to bail, ruling that continued detention was unnecessary pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that the complainant is also the investigating officer necessitate a more rigorous scrutiny of the prosecution's evidence?
  • Is the failure to associate independent witnesses in a populated area a valid ground for granting bail in a narcotics case?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending samples for chemical analysis entitle an accused to further probe for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Khan and 2 others vs The State2022 YLR 1946 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-11-05
  criminal appealbenefit of the doubtdelayed FIRidentification paradedishonest improvementsrecovery proceedingsHudood Ordinanceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal appeals filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II Larkana, which convicted the appellants under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, Section 452 of The Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 506(2) of The Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the legality and reliability of convictions based on delayed First Information Reports, subsequent supplementary statements involving improved allegations, lack of identification parades for unknown accused, and defective recovery proceedings under Section 103 of The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Federal Shariat Court held that unexplained inordinate delays, material contradictions, dishonest improvements in witness statements, and non-compliance with mandatory recovery provisions render the prosecution case highly doubtful. Consequently, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants extending them the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of an accused entitles them to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report is fatal to the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of eye-witnesses who have made dishonest and deliberate improvements in their statements during trial?
  • Is an identification parade mandatory when unidentified accused are subsequently named by witnesses after a considerable delay?
  • Does non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the recovery of alleged stolen property?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Imran Minhas vs M/O. Inter-Provincial Coordination through Secretary,2022 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 44 · Federal Service Tribunal
  disciplinary proceedingsE&D Rulesmajor penaltyreduction in rankprocedural irregularityservice appealburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order imposing a major penalty of reduction in rank upon the appellant under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, based on allegations of corruption and misconduct. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the mandatory procedural requirements of the E&D Rules, 1973, and whether the findings were supported by substantive evidence. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the proceedings were vitiated by multiple procedural illegalities, including the failure to follow the prescribed inquiry process, the reliance on hearsay and conjecture, and the initiation of de novo inquiries without justification. The Tribunal emphasized that disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature and must strictly adhere to statutory procedures. Because the inquiry report was unsigned, the evidence was unsubstantiated, and the appellant was subjected to irregular disciplinary processes, the Tribunal set aside the impugned penalty order and restored the appellant's service benefits. The judgment underscores that administrative authorities cannot bypass mandatory procedural safeguards or rely on unproven allegations to impose major penalties.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to follow the prescribed procedure under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, vitiate disciplinary proceedings?
  • Can a disciplinary authority initiate de novo inquiries against a civil servant without valid legal justification?
  • Are disciplinary proceedings under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, considered to be of a judicial nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ikram vs Mian Muhammad Ikram and 3 others2022 PLD Lahore 559 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-17
  Protection of Parents Ordinanceeviction of childDeputy Commissioner jurisdictionspecial lawcivil vs criminal procedurependency of civil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision challenged an appellate order that remanded a matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad, with instructions to follow the procedure under Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in a dispute under the Protection of Parents Ordinance, 2021. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Commissioner, when exercising powers under the Protection of Parents Ordinance, 2021, must follow the trial procedure prescribed in Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the pendency of civil litigation bars the Deputy Commissioner from exercising jurisdiction. The Court held that the Protection of Parents Ordinance, 2021 is a special law. It clarified that while penal provisions under the Ordinance might attract criminal procedure, the Deputy Commissioner's power to order eviction under Section 4(2) is a civil-side function that does not require the recording of evidence under Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the Court established that the Deputy Commissioner must exercise jurisdiction regardless of pending civil suits, as the Ordinance explicitly overrides defences regarding property title or construction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the procedure under Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to eviction orders passed by a Deputy Commissioner under the Protection of Parents Ordinance 2021?
  • Can a Deputy Commissioner decline to exercise jurisdiction under the Protection of Parents Ordinance 2021 due to the pendency of civil litigation between the parties?
  • Does the Protection of Parents Ordinance 2021 allow the Deputy Commissioner to order eviction irrespective of the child's defence regarding property ownership or construction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain Rajabali Limited vs Securities & Exchange Commissioner2022 SHC 28, 2022 CLD 999 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-28Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain Manzoor vs Federation Of Pakistan, etc2022 PLJ Lahore 226 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain Manzoor vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2022 MLD 361 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Husnain vs Inspector General of Punjab Police, Lahore etc.2022 LHC 7670, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 333 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-10
  police recruitmentcharacter verificationcriminal recordacquittal on compromisepublic service commission recommendationswrit jurisdictiondisciplined forceappointment eligibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order by the Additional Inspector General of Police, Special Branch, Punjab, rejecting the petitioner's representation for appointment as a Supervisor (BS-14) despite his selection by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The core legal question was whether the respondent-department could lawfully refuse to appoint a candidate recommended by the Commission due to the candidate's prior involvement in criminal cases and poor service record. The Court held that the respondent-department acted within its jurisdiction in rejecting the petitioner. It reasoned that for a disciplined force like the Police, integrity and an unblemished character are essential prerequisites. The Court found that the petitioner's prior acquittal in a criminal case was based on a compromise rather than merit, casting doubt on his character, and that he had a history of habitual absenteeism and misconduct. The key principle laid down is that recommendations by a public service commission are not absolute; the appointing authority retains the discretion and duty to verify a candidate's character and may refuse appointment if the candidate fails to meet the requisite standards of integrity, especially where criminal involvement or material concealment is evident.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department refuse to appoint a candidate recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission based on character verification?
  • Does an acquittal based on a compromise in a criminal case satisfy the character requirements for appointment to a disciplined police force?
  • Is a candidate who conceals or has a history of criminal involvement entitled to appointment in the police department as a matter of right?
  • Does the appointing authority have the jurisdiction to formulate policies to sift out candidates with unblemished records for police service?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan vs The State etc2022 LHC 4314 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-31
  pre-arrest bailrash and negligent drivingtraffic accidentstrict construction of penal statuteshurt by rash and negligent driving
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the petitioner seeking confirmation of his pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 337-F(i) and 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with sections 279, 334, 336, and 337-G subsequently added during the investigation, arising from a road accident where the petitioner allegedly drove an improvised vehicle negligently, resulting in grievous injuries and the amputation of the complainant's son's right leg. The core legal question revolved around the proper application of penal provisions relating to rash and negligent driving, the definition of a vehicle, and whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's alleged act fell squarely under section 337-G of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while other hurt sections added in the FIR were unwarranted, and confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The court laid down the principle that penal statutes must be strictly construed, that driving offences must be examined based on attending circumstances, and that the existence of a driving licence or an improvised vehicle does not expand the scope of a penal provision beyond its literal text.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offender can be simultaneously charged under section 279 and section 320 or 337-G of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the same transaction?
  • Does the term vehicle under section 279 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 include an improvised vehicle or non-motorized transport?
  • How should rash and negligent driving be determined in road accident cases?
  • Are penal statutes to be construed strictly in favour of the liberty of the individual?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar Gopang and another vs The State2022 MLD 1308 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-16
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailprohibitory clausedelay in FIRprevious hostilityhurt cases
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application wherein the applicants sought pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 57 of 2019 registered at Police Station Badeh under sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 452, 504, 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether the offences charged fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether malafide, delay in lodging the FIR, and previous hostility warranted the confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court held that since the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., there was an unexplained delay of 25 days in lodging the FIR, and previous hostility existed between the parties, the applicants made out a case for anticipatory bail. The court laid down the principle that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed where the charged offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause, and there is a reasonable possibility of false implication due to delay and prior enmity, provided the accused have not misused the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of 25 days in lodging an FIR support the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can previous hostility between parties be considered a ground for potential false implication when deciding a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Bux Shaikh vs The Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi and others2022 SCP 260, 2023 PLC (C.S) 831, 2022 SCMR 2050 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-27
  date of birthservice tribunalcivil servantinterpolation in service bookdoctrine of estoppelsuperannuationfraudulent certificates
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal by the Sindh Service Tribunal, which upheld the holding in abeyance of a notification that had withdrawn the petitioner's retirement. The core legal question concerned whether a civil servant's date of birth, once recorded in the service book, is final and immutable under Rule 12-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, even when interpolation, fraud, or bogus educational certificates are discovered. The Supreme Court held that while Rule 12-A gives finality to the recorded date of birth, it does not bar the competent authority from inquiring into interpolations or fraudulent entries. Furthermore, the Court applied the doctrines of estoppel, acquiescence, and approbation and reprobation, noting that the petitioner had previously acknowledged his retirement date in earlier proceedings. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a wrong or interpolated entry cannot be treated as sacrosanct.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the date of birth of a civil servant once recorded at the time of joining service can be altered or inquired into if interpolation or forgery is discovered?
  • Does Rule 12-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 prohibit the competent authority from rectifying a wrong date of birth resulting from fraud?
  • Can a petitioner resile from an admission regarding his date of retirement previously made in judicial proceedings before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Azhar vs Arzoo Fatima and 5 others2022 PLD Sindh 1 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-07Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar @ Aksar vs The State2022 SCP 422, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-07
  murdercapital punishmentmitigating circumstancemotiveocular accountinterested witnessesforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the high court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for the murder of the deceased, alongside an order for compensation. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular testimony of related and interested witnesses, the corroborative value of medical and forensic evidence, and whether an unproven or shrouded motive constitutes a mitigating circumstance for commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the ocular account was trustworthy, prompt, and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, thus sustaining the conviction. However, the Court ruled that where the prosecution fails to establish the specific motive alleged, leaving it shrouded in mystery, it serves as a mitigating circumstance. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, the conviction under Section 302(b) was maintained, but the sentence of death was altered to imprisonment for life, with the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 extended to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and interested eyewitnesses can be relied upon without corroboration if it inspires confidence?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive serve as a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether minor discrepancies and discrepancies in statements of eyewitnesses are sufficient to discard the prosecution's case?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a matching forensic report concerning crime empties and a recovered weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Akhter Hussain Shah vs Model Project (Pvt.) Limited through Chief2022 YLR 310 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-25Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar Narejo vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2022 SHC 496 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-31
  wrongful terminationservice rulessubsequent acquittaldepartmental proceedingssuspensionPakistan Steelback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner from Pakistan Steel, which occurred following his conviction in a criminal case arising from a private dispute. The core legal question was whether the termination was lawful given the petitioner's subsequent acquittal by the High Court and whether the department should have invoked suspension rules rather than termination. The Court held that the termination was not in accordance with law. Relying on the principle that acquittal constitutes a significant subsequent development, the Court determined that the department was obligated to consider this development in its disciplinary assessment. The Court held that the petitioner should have been placed under suspension pursuant to Service Rule 6.6(ii) of the Pakistan Steel Officers Service Rules and Regulations rather than being terminated. Consequently, the termination order was set aside, and the department was directed to consider the petitioner's entitlement to back benefits or retirement benefits in accordance with the relevant rules. The judgment reaffirms that while disciplinary proceedings are distinct from criminal outcomes, authorities must account for subsequent acquittals when reviewing past disciplinary actions.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal in a criminal case constitute a subsequent development that must be considered by departmental authorities in disciplinary proceedings?
  • Should an employee committed to prison be placed under suspension rather than terminated under the Pakistan Steel Officers Service Rules and Regulations?
  • Is a termination order based solely on a criminal conviction sustainable after the employee is acquitted of the underlying charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed and others vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1480 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-13
  criminal appealqatl-i-amdunlawful assemblyvicarious liabilityocular evidencemedical evidenceappreciation of evidencecommon object
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for murder (qatl-i-amd) and causing injuries, as determined by the trial court. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence, the impact of alleged contradictions in witness testimony, the effect of delay in FIR registration, and the application of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions. The court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular accounts corroborated by medical evidence. The court affirmed that medical evidence is corroborative rather than substantive, and that minor discrepancies in testimony do not undermine the prosecution's case if the core account remains credible. Furthermore, the court established that under Section 149, proof of specific overt acts is unnecessary if a common object of an unlawful assembly is proven. Finally, the court ruled that relationship between witnesses is not a valid ground to discard their testimony if they are otherwise natural and truthful.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require proof of a specific overt act by each member of an unlawful assembly?
  • Is medical evidence considered substantive evidence or merely corroborative in criminal trials?
  • Can the testimony of related witnesses be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship to the victim?
  • Do minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed and 2 others vs Ghulam Mustafa and others2022 MLD 908 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-31Read full judgment →
• Aleem Ahmad and another vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C.1208 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-26
  last seen evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealdelayed FIRkidnappingmurderburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the kidnapping and murder of a three-year-old child. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on 'last seen' evidence, significant delays in reporting the crime, and the absence of corroborative proof. The Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. It found the 'last seen' evidence unreliable, as the witnesses failed to intervene or report the matter promptly, and their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were delayed without explanation. Furthermore, the Court noted the inordinate delay in FIR registration and the lack of credible evidence regarding the alleged ransom calls. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits without relying on defence weaknesses, and that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, granting them the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is 'last seen' evidence sufficient for conviction without corroboration?
  • Does a delayed statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect the credibility of a witness?
  • What is the effect of an inordinate delay in the registration of an FIR on the prosecution's case?
  • Can the prosecution rely on the weaknesses of the defence to prove its case?
  Read full judgment →
• Alamzeb and others vs Mian Masaud and others2022 PHC 94 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-28Read full judgment →
• Alamdar etc vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 639 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-04
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular accountchance witnessmurder convictionburden of proofappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a private complaint regarding a murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the ocular account, motive, and recovery evidence presented. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The Court found the ocular testimony unreliable due to significant delays in medical examinations, discrepancies between the FIR and medical evidence regarding injury locations, and the status of witnesses as chance witnesses without satisfactory explanations for their presence. Furthermore, the alleged motive remained unproven, and the recovery evidence lacked forensic verification. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits, and any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal, regardless of the defence's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of an injury on a witness automatically render their testimony truthful?
  • Is a chance witness's testimony acceptable without a satisfactory explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Can the prosecution rely on the weaknesses of the defence case to secure a conviction?
  • Is a single circumstance creating doubt sufficient to acquit an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Alam Raheel alias Alam Raseel vs The State etc2022 PHC 162 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-07Read full judgment →
• Al-Zahid Heavy Equipment through Zahid Hussain vs Pakistan Railways2022 MLD 1143 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-02Read full judgment →
• Al-Hadi Rice Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., etc vs MCB Limited, etc2022 LHC 7050 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
• Akram vs Vakeel Muhammad and others2022 CLC 1700 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-25Read full judgment →
• Akram Khan Durrani and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhutnkhwa2022 PLD Peshawar 171 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-02Read full judgment →
• Akram Ali and others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Local2022 CLC 1634 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-08Read full judgment →
• Akmal Aziz and 3 Others vs Habib Bank Limited and another2022 LHC 7982 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Zarin vs The State2022 MLD 796 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-27
  narcotics recoverysecret cavitiesburden of proofsafe custody of samplescriminal jail appealControl of Narcotic Substances Actpossession and knowledge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court-II (C.N.S.) Karachi, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine. The prosecution case was that 80 kilograms of Charas were recovered from secret cavities of a vehicle driven and owned by the appellant, who was intercepted at a toll plaza following a police encounter. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the police encounter, the reliability of the recovery from the vehicle, the presumption of knowledge under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of narcotics from the vehicle in the appellant's possession and control, that the burden shifted to the accused under the statute to rebut knowledge which he failed to do, and that minor delays in sending samples for chemical analysis do not vitiate the trial when safe custody is established. The key principle laid down is that once recovery from a vehicle under the control of an accused is proven, the statutory presumption shifts the burden to the accused to disprove knowledge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution proved the recovery of narcotics from the vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 once the recovery of contraband from a vehicle under his control is established?
  • Whether a delay of six days in sending recovered narcotics for chemical analysis vitiates the conviction when safe custody is established?
  • Whether an accused driving a vehicle over a long journey is presumed to have knowledge of contraband concealed in secret cavities of the vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Zaman vs The State2022 PHC 282, 2022 PCRLJ 1822 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-11
  bail on medical groundsunsound mindbipolar affective disordertrial adjourned sine diedetention of lunaticmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a bail application on medical grounds filed by the accused-petitioner, who is facing trial for double murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether an accused suffering from a mental illness, specifically bipolar affective disorder, is entitled to release on bail under Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the trial court correctly adjourned the proceedings sine die. The Peshawar High Court held that Section 466 CrPC does not automatically warrant the release on bail of an accused facing serious criminal charges, particularly where conflicting medical board reports exist and the accused has a history of other criminal cases. The court ruled that the trial court acted appropriately by ordering the accused to be detained in a mental hospital for treatment and adjourning the trial sine die until recovery. The key principle laid down is that an accused claiming unsoundness of mind during trial may be remanded to safe custody for medical treatment rather than being released on bail, when conflicting medical opinions and the severity of the allegations so dictate.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused person suffering from bipolar affective disorder entitled to automatic release on bail under Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court adjourn proceedings sine die when an accused is found temporarily unfit to face trial due to mental illness?
  • Does Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply strictly to every case involving an accused of unsound mind regardless of criminal history and conflicting medical reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Muhammad vs Shabana and another2022 CLC 1917 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-18
  succession certificateservice benefitsTarkainheritancedependentbenevolent fundgratuityfamily pension
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a dispute over the distribution of service benefits following the death of a government employee. The core legal question was whether various post-death service benefits—such as group insurance, benevolent fund, and gratuity—constitute part of the deceased's estate (Tarka) to be distributed among all legal heirs according to Islamic inheritance law, or whether they are specific grants payable only to designated family members under service rules. The Court held that benefits like gratuity, group insurance, and benevolent funds, which do not become payable to an employee during their lifetime, do not form part of the deceased's estate (Tarka) and are not inheritable by all legal heirs. Instead, these are grants or concessions governed by specific service rules and regulations, payable only to those defined as 'family' under the relevant statutes. The Court affirmed that the father, being a government pensioner himself, did not qualify as a dependent, and the distribution of these specific grants must strictly follow the applicable service rules rather than general inheritance law.

  Questions settled

  • Do post-death service benefits like group insurance and benevolent funds constitute part of the deceased's estate (Tarka) for inheritance purposes?
  • Are service benefits that were not payable to an employee during their lifetime inheritable by all legal heirs?
  • Does a government pensioner father qualify as a dependent for the purpose of receiving a deceased employee's service grants?
  • Which family members are entitled to death-cum-retirement gratuity under the Balochistan Civil Services Pension Rules 1989?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Meen vs The State2022 PLD Sindh 84 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-19
  narcotics controlillegal detentionexcise police powersinvestigation by seizing officersafe custody of charascriminal appealmandatory provisionsvitiated trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 6/9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, arising from an alleged recovery of charas from a rickshaw. The core legal questions involve the legality of the entire investigation and prosecution conducted single-handedly by an Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer (AETO), the non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions regarding safe custody, recording of spy information, and the proper procedure for forwarding arrested persons and seized articles. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence. The Court held that Provincial Excise Police officers empowered under section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 do not possess the authority to investigate offences or detain accused persons in Excise police stations; instead, they must immediately forward the accused and seized property to the nearest local police station pursuant to section 27. The key principles laid down include the mandatory nature of recording and transmitting information to superior officers under section 21(2), the prohibition against Excise officers conducting independent investigations and detaining suspects in specialized stations, and the vitiation of trial proceedings resulting from such systemic legal flaws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Provincial Excise Police officers empowered under section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 have the lawful authority to investigate offences and detain accused persons in Excise police stations?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to immediately forward an arrested person and seized narcotic articles to the nearest local police station under section 27 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the non-production of an anonymous spy or informer render the prosecution's reliance on unverified spy information fatal to the case?
  • Whether a seizing officer who acts as the complainant, arresting officer, and investigating officer simultaneously vitiates the trial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Gul vs The State2022 SCMR 1627 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-31
  narcoticssafe custodychain of custodybenefit of doubtforensic science laboratorycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and sentence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 50 kilograms of charas. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered narcotic samples from the time of seizure until their delivery to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Upon review, the Court observed a critical gap in the chain of custody: the samples were recovered on 16.10.2011 but only reached the laboratory on 21.10.2011, and the prosecution failed to produce the Moharrar or the constable responsible for the custody and transport of the parcels during this interval. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that this failure to prove safe custody and transmission creates a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt, and ordered his immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the official responsible for the custody of narcotic samples between the date of recovery and the date of delivery to the laboratory invalidate the conviction?
  • Is the proof of safe custody and safe transmission of narcotic samples a mandatory requirement for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs Post Master General2022 LHC 4542, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 234 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-23
  military pensionpension suspensioncriminal convictiongood conductbail pending appealservice benefitsforfeiture of pension
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired army personnel, challenged the withholding of his pension by the respondent following his conviction for murder and sentencing to life imprisonment. Although the petitioner’s sentence was subsequently suspended by the High Court and he was released on bail pending his criminal appeal, the respondent refused to restore his pensionary benefits. The core legal question was whether the suspension of a sentence and release on bail pending appeal entitles a pensioner to the restoration of pension benefits withheld due to a criminal conviction. The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to the restoration of his pension while his appeal remains pending. The ratio is that pension is granted subject to the implied condition of "future good conduct," and conviction for a serious crime justifies withholding pension. The Court established that restoration of pensionary benefits is contingent upon a final acquittal by a higher court; mere suspension of a sentence and release on bail does not satisfy this requirement, as the conviction remains in force until the appeal is decided.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suspension of a sentence and release on bail pending appeal entitle a convicted pensioner to the restoration of their pension?
  • Is future good conduct an implied condition for the continued receipt of military pension?
  • Under what circumstances can a military pensioner's pension be restored after being withheld due to a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Akeel Ahmad vs Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore, etc.2022 LHC 7414, 2024 PLD Lahore 228 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-12Read full judgment →
• Akbar Azam vs The State, etc2022 IHC 170 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-19Read full judgment →
• Ajmal and 2 others vs Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Quetta and 4 others2022 PCRLJ 1659 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-11-30
  criminal remandwarrants of arresttransfer of investigationdischarge of accusedjurisdiction of magistratefunctus officio
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioners challenging orders issued by Judicial Magistrates for their arrest and physical remand, as well as an Additional Sessions Judge's order dismissing their criminal revision. The petitioners, initially nominated in a murder case under the Pakistan Penal Code, had been discharged by the Investigating Officer, but following the transfer of further investigation to the Crimes Branch, warrants and remand orders were issued against them. The core legal question concerned the competence and jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate to issue warrants of arrest and grant physical remand after the investigation had been transferred and when a challan was already pending or being submitted before the trial court. The Balochistan High Court held that once a matter is sub judice before the trial court and a challan is submitted or under process, the Judicial Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to issue warrants of arrest or grant remand. The petition was accepted, setting aside the impugned warrants and remand orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Judicial Magistrate has the jurisdiction to issue warrants of arrest and grant physical remand after the submission of a challan or when the matter is pending before the trial court?
  • Can a Judicial Magistrate order the arrest of an accused who was earlier discharged by the Investigating Officer under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the High Court have the power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to interfere with police investigations into criminal offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Air Blue (Pvt) Ltd through its M.D., The Manager (Sales) Air Blue and others2022 IHC 252 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ajdar Ali vs The State2022 PCRLJ 967 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-10
  qatl-i-amdmurdereyewitness testimonyforensic evidencesentence enhancementcross-examination contradictionsconfessional statementcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 15-AA, along with a connected criminal revision petition filed by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence from life imprisonment to death. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the eyewitness account, the corroborative value of the forensic and medical evidence, and the sufficiency of grounds for sentence enhancement. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through prompt registration of the FIR, natural and consistent eyewitness testimony, positive forensic matching of the crime weapon with recovered empties, and supportive medical evidence. The court laid down the principle that minor contradictions or confusion elicited during lengthy cross-examination cannot discredit an otherwise trustworthy witness whose testimony aligns with the overall circumstances of the case, and that sentence enhancement requires strong and compelling grounds. Consequently, both the appeal against conviction and the revision petition for enhancement were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction extracted during lengthy cross-examination warrant the rejection of an otherwise natural eyewitness testimony?
  • Whether prompt registration of an FIR and corroboration by forensic and medical evidence are sufficient to sustain a conviction for qatl-i-amd?
  • On what grounds can an appellate court decline to enhance a sentence of life imprisonment to death?
  Read full judgment →
• Ajab Khan vs The State2022 SCMR 317, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 9 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-28
  NarcoticsDrug traffickingControl of Narcotic Substances ActConfessional statementPolice testimonyChain of custodyForensic Science LaboratoryLeave to appealConvictionSentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the petitioner's conviction and life sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possessing 19 kilograms of charas. The core legal questions revolved around the sufficiency of police testimony without public witnesses, the validity of a confessional statement recorded on a proforma and translated from Pashto, and the integrity of the sample's chain of custody due to a six-day delay in transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal, thereby upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court reiterated that police officials' testimony is credible unless animus is proven, and the public's reluctance to witness such cases is judicially recognized. It further held that objections regarding sample transmission must be raised during cross-examination, and a confessional statement, if recorded with due precautions and verification, remains valid despite being translated. The recovery of a huge quantity of narcotics and consistent prosecution evidence were deemed sufficient for conviction.

  Read full judgment →
• Aisha Rahman vs Allied Bank Limited and others2022 CLD 981 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-31Read full judgment →
• Aina Bano vs Pakistan Medical Commission and others2022 LHC 8190, 2024 MLD 867 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-14Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Hussain Jakhrani vs National Accountability Bureau & another2022 SHC 344 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-18Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ali vs Ali Nawaz and another2022 PLD Sindh 122 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-15
  compromisecompoundable offenseTazirQisaslegal heirsmurdercriminal revisioninheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges the trial court's order declining to accept a compromise between the accused and certain legal heirs in a murder trial under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, punishable under Tazir. The core legal question was whether collateral relatives such as the brother and sister of the deceased, who are heirs of an heir rather than direct heirs, possess the right to resist a compromise entered into by the direct legal heirs of the victim under section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Relying on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Muhammad Yousaf v. The State (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 461), the High Court held that in cases of Tazir, only direct heirs of the victim possess the capacity to compound the offense, and such capacity does not devolve upon heirs of a deceased heir. The court laid down the principle that the distinction between Qisas and Tazir governs the right to compound offences, limiting compounding rights in Tazir strictly to direct heirs of the victim.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the brother and sister of a deceased victim have the right to resist a compromise entered into between the accused and the direct legal heirs in an offense punishable under Tazir?
  • Does the capacity to compound an offense of qatl-i-amd under section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 devolve upon the heirs of a deceased heir in cases of Tazir?
  • What is the distinction between Qisas and Tazir regarding the devolvement of the right to compound or waive an offense upon the heirs of an heir?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahtizaz Alam Malik vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2022 PSC 506 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-12-06
  constitutional petitionservice of Pakistanquota systemfundamental rightspublic appointmentsEighteenth Amendmentcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions challenging the provincial and regional quota system in the Central Superior Service examinations as being violative of Article 27(1) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question is whether the reservation of posts for various provinces and backward areas to secure adequate representation violates the constitutional prohibition against discrimination in public service appointments. The Supreme Court held that following the insertion of the third proviso to Article 27(1) through the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010, under-representation of any class or area may be redressed through an Act of Parliament, rendering the quota system consistent with the Constitution. Consequently, the petitions challenging the quota system were dismissed, and a related petition concerning a High Court judgment that ignored these constitutional provisions and civil service amendments was converted into an appeal and allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment. The key principle laid down is that statutory measures and parliamentary enactments providing for regional quotas to redress under-representation in public service are constitutionally valid under the provisos to Article 27(1).

  Questions settled

  • Whether the quota system for provinces and backward areas in the Central Superior Service examinations violates Article 27(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can under-representation of any class or area in the service of Pakistan be redressed through an Act of Parliament pursuant to the Eighteenth Amendment?
  • Does the statutory framework governing service quotas currently in force comply with the provisions of Article 27(1) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Khan vs Government of the Punjab etc2022 LHC 7862 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-31Read full judgment →
• Ahsan @ Kesso vs The State2022 SHC 150 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-21
  criminal jail appealquantum of punishmentreduction of sentencejudicial discretionreformationstolen propertycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 412 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine. The appellant's counsel did not press the appeal on merits but sought leniency, praying for the sentence to be reduced to the period already undergone, a proposition conceded to by the Additional Prosecutor General for the State. The core legal question revolved around the quantum of punishment and the exercise of judicial discretion in reducing the sentence keeping in view the principles of reformation, deterrence, and the circumstances of the case, including the acquittal of co-accused. The Sindh High Court held that since the offense falls under the category where punishment 'may extend upto' a certain limit, the court has the discretion to award a lesser sentence to afford an opportunity for reformation. Consequently, the court maintained the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence and the default sentence for non-payment of fine to the period already undergone by the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can reduce a criminal sentence to the period already undergone when the appellant does not press the appeal on merits?
  • How does the concept of reformation influence the judicial discretion in determining the quantum of punishment under offenses where the penalty 'may extend upto' a certain limit?
  • Can the sentence in lieu of non-payment of fine be ordered to run concurrently with or be included in the sentence already undergone?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmer and others vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1279 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-03
  police encountercommon intentionmurderterrorismpolice witnessfirearm recoverypost-arrest bailcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for murder, attempted murder, assault on law enforcement personnel, and terrorism offences following a fatal armed encounter between a police party and miscreants. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants participated in the armed encounter and shared a common intention to commit murder and terrorism, despite no specific fatal injury being attributed to any individual appellant. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants through prompt FIR lodging, credible eyewitness testimony of police officials corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, positive FSL reports linking recovered weapons to empties at the scene, and the failure of the defence to substantiate claims of false implication or alibi. The court affirmed the convictions, ruling that where multiple accused participate with common intent in an armed attack resulting in deaths, exact attribution of the fatal shot is unnecessary for conviction under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and relevant provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the evidence of police witnesses can be relied upon without corroboration by private witnesses in a criminal trial?
  • Does the failure to attribute a specific fatal injury to an individual accused preclude a conviction for murder under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in cases of a joint armed attack?
  • Whether a delay in sending recovered weapons and empties for forensic science laboratory testing is fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can a police encounter resulting in the death of law enforcement personnel attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Sher etc vs Khuda Bakhsh etc2022 LHC 2015 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-01Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Shah and another vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 1260 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-04
  criminal appealocular evidencechance witnessinterested witnessfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusacquittalself-defensebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a conviction for murder and causing injury, alongside a revision petition for sentence enhancement and an acquittal appeal. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on ocular evidence and weapon recoveries. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. It determined that the ocular witnesses were 'chance witnesses' whose presence at the scene was not established, and that the prosecution had suppressed injuries sustained by the appellant, suggesting a potential self-defense scenario. The Court emphasized that while an injured witness is generally credible, their testimony must still be tested for truthfulness, and the mere existence of injuries does not guarantee reliability. Furthermore, the Court applied the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus to the discarded prosecution witnesses. It concluded that a capital conviction cannot be sustained without unimpeachable, trustworthy evidence, and that the prosecution's case was riddled with significant doubts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injuries on a witness automatically render their testimony truthful?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution suppresses injuries sustained by the accused?
  • Is the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applicable when prosecution witnesses are found to be untruthful?
  • Does the testimony of a chance witness require independent corroboration to be reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Khan and another vs Director General, LDA, etc.2022 PLJ Lahore 504 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Bilal vs Khurram Javed2022 IHC 184 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-16Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Waqas etc vs Ishtiaq Ali etc2022 PLJ Lahore 129 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Waqas and others vs Ishtiaq Ali and others2022 PLD Lahore 313 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Waleed Adnan and 28 others vs Government of Punjab through Secretary Education Punjab, Lahore and 5 others2022 PLJ Lahore 567 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs Adj, etc2022 LHC 6817 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-06Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Kamal etc vs The State etc2022 PHC 134 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-12Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Fraz vs The State2022 YLR 1777 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-14
  criminal appealattempt to commit rapebenefit of doubtdelayed FIRacquittalevidence evaluation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Ahmad Fraz, who was found guilty by the trial court for the offence of attempting to commit rape under sections 376/511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given the evidentiary gaps. The High Court observed that there was an unexplained two-day delay in lodging the FIR, which proved fatal to the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the victim failed to undergo a medical examination, and the complainant explicitly stated he had no objection to the appellant's acquittal. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The Court reaffirmed the settled legal principle 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 as a concession.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create a fatal defect in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of right for an accused when reasonable doubt exists?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the complainant consents to the acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Faran Sabir vs The State etc2022 LHC 7910, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 469, 2024 CLD 30, 2024 PCRLJ 165 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-26
  dishonoured chequecash chequebearer chequeacquittalinvestigating officer reportholder in due coursequashing of proceedingsnegotiable instrument
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his application under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, seeking acquittal in a criminal case registered under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for issuing a dishonoured cheque, and further prayed for quashing of proceedings under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question was whether a 'cash or bearer' cheque falls within the definition of a cheque or bill of exchange under section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, thereby attracting criminal liability under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether an investigating officer's opinion favoring the accused warrants acquittal under section 249-A. The Lahore High Court held that a cheque reading 'pay cash or bearer' is a valid negotiable instrument under the law, as Pakistani law extends the definition of a bill of exchange to the bearer of the instrument. The court further held that an investigating officer's report is not substantive evidence and cannot preempt a regular trial, and statutory presumptions under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding a holder in due course must be tested through evidence. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a cash or bearer cheque is a valid cheque or bill of exchange under section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881?
  • Does the dishonour of a cash or bearer cheque attract criminal liability under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an accused be acquitted under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely on the basis of a favorable opinion or finding by the investigating officer?
  • What is the scope of statutory presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 regarding a holder in due course?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Baksh vs Adj etc2022 LHC 4532 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-13Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh vs Imam Bakhsh & others2022 LHC 8148 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-08Read full judgment →
• Ahmad and another vs Manzoor Ahmad2022 LHC 4369 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-31Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Abbas vs Additional District Judge and others2022 CLC 1296 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-15Read full judgment →
• Agha Siraj Khan Durrani and others vs National Accountability Bureau2022 P Cr. L J 722 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-13
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailassets beyond known sources of incomebenamidarcorruption and corrupt practicesNational Accountability Bureaufurther inquiryfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Sindh High Court addresses multiple petitions for pre-arrest and post-arrest bail arising from a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference concerning corruption, corrupt practices, and the accumulation of massive assets beyond known sources of income against Agha Siraj Khan Durrani, the Speaker of the Sindh Assembly, along with his family members, administrative associates, and alleged benamidars. The core legal questions revolved around whether the petitioners made out a case for bail based on merits, further inquiry, or alleged mala fides, and whether sufficient incriminating material existed to curtail their fundamental right to liberty under Article 9 of the Constitution. The court held that while abundant documentary and oral evidence—including statements of sellers, purchasers, and bank records—prima facie connected the principal accused and his cronies, servants, and managers to the acquired properties, no such direct nexus or knowledge of illicit financing was established regarding his family members and certain independent business brokers. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petitions of the principal accused and his active facilitators, while allowing the bail petitions of his family members and certain realtors on the ground that their cases entailed further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be granted pre-arrest bail in a corruption reference when sufficient documentary evidence and statements connect him to assets held beyond known sources of income?
  • Does an alleged irregularity or illegality in an investigation vitiate the proceedings after the trial court has already taken cognizance of the offence?
  • Whether family members of a public office holder can be denied bail solely on the basis that assets were purchased in their names by the principal accused, absent proof of their complicity or knowledge?
  • Does the issuance of a fresh call-up notice or conducting further investigation after the filing of a reference render the initial investigation legally void or warrant further inquiry for bail purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Construction Company through Proprietor vs Government Of Balochistan through Secretary, Mineral and Mines Deptt. and another2022 CLC 550 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-11-29Read full judgment →
• Afzal Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Secretary LCB, Civil2022 PHC 190, 2022 PLD Peshawar 229 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-17Read full judgment →
• Afzal Khan & another vs The State2022 LHC 1525, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 871 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-18
  defective chargeremand for retrialqatl-i-amdappellate jurisdictionautrefois convictautrefois acquitmurder referencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for multiple murders arising from a single incident. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether a defective charge sheet that omitted the name of one of the deceased victims vitiated the trial and how an appellate court should rectify such a material error. The court held that the omission of a victim's name from the charge amounted to a serious defect, meaning the accused were never legally tried for that specific murder, and that the appropriate remedy under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is to set aside the conviction and remand the case for a retrial. The key legal principle laid down is that a material error in framing a charge that misleads the defence requires the appellate court to set aside the conviction and remand the matter to the trial court for fresh indictment and further proceedings in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • What are the legal consequences under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a trial court omits the name of a murder victim from the formal charge sheet?
  • Can an appellate court remand a criminal case for a fresh trial under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to a material defect in the charge?
  • Does the omission of a victim's name in the initial indictment attract the constitutional bar against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What powers does an appellate court possess when it discovers a material error in the framing of a charge during the hearing of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Afzal Ahmad vs City Police Officer, Faisalabad, etc2022 LHC 5942, 2022 PLD Lahore 721 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-21Read full judgment →
• Afzal Ahmad Buttar and another vs Muhammad Yousaf2022 YLR 2293 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-11Read full judgment →
• Aftab vs The State And Another2022 PHC 642 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-01Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmed Gorar vs Adnan-ul-Karim Memon2022 SHC 108 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-01
  master and servantstatutory rulescompulsory retirementconstitutional petitionwrit of mandamusPIACdownsizing policyterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged his compulsory retirement from the employment of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) effected vide letter dated December 31, 2006, along with the appellate order dated March 7, 2007. The core legal questions revolved around the maintainability of a constitutional petition against PIAC under Article 199 of the Constitution in the absence of statutory service rules, and the legality of the petitioner's premature retirement on the ground of a organizational downsizing and rationalization policy. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that PIAC's service regulations do not qualify as statutory rules because they were not notified with federal government approval and laid before parliament. Consequently, the relationship between PIAC and its employees is governed by the principle of 'master and servant,' rendering non-statutory terms unenforceable through a writ of mandamus, and limiting the aggrieved employee to seeking damages before a court of plenary jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable against the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation for the enforcement of service terms?
  • Do the service regulations framed by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation constitute statutory rules of service?
  • Can an employee of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation seek reinstatement in service along with back benefits in the absence of statutory service rules?
  • What is the nature of the legal relationship between the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and its employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmed and another vs Province Of Sindh and others2022 MLD 413 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-24Read full judgment →
• Adnan vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1852 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-07
  murderbenefit of doubtchance witnessocular accountmedical evidencecriminal appealacquittalunnatural conduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant for the murder of his nephew. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through the ocular account and recovery of the weapon. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt, primarily due to significant evidentiary flaws. The Court found the eye-witnesses to be "chance witnesses" whose presence was doubtful and whose conduct was unnatural, as they failed to intervene despite the assailant being unarmed with a firearm. Furthermore, the Court noted a 33-hour delay in the post-mortem examination, indicating the fabrication of testimony, and a material conflict between the FIR and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries. The recovery of the weapon from a public place after 16 days was deemed unreliable, and the alleged motive remained unproven. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in conducting a post-mortem examination create a reasonable doubt regarding the presence of eye-witnesses at the crime scene?
  • Can the testimony of eye-witnesses be disregarded if their conduct at the time of the occurrence is deemed unnatural?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt if there is a material conflict between the FIR and the medical evidence regarding the nature and number of injuries?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon from a public place after a significant delay, coupled with a delay in forensic analysis, render the recovery evidence unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan vs State & another2022 PHC 526 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-21Read full judgment →
• Adnan Pervaiz and another vs The State and another2022 YLR 2259, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 873 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-30
  circumstantial evidencejudicial confessionretracted confessionbenefit of the doubtmurder referencechance witnessadmissibility of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences awarded to the appellants by the trial court under Section 302(b) and Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of two women, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal questions involved the appraisal of circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value and voluntary nature of a retracted judicial confession made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by a co-accused, the credibility of chance witnesses, and the admissibility of discoveries under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken, impeccable chain of circumstantial evidence, that the retracted judicial confession was exculpatory, legally flawed, and uncorroborated, and that the alleged pointations did not lead to any new discoveries. The court established that a co-accused's confession is a weak piece of evidence that cannot form the sole foundation for a conviction without strong, independent corroboration. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retracted judicial confession of a co-accused can form the sole foundation for the conviction of another accused without independent corroboration?
  • What are the mandatory legal requirements to establish the voluntary nature of a judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence when the chain of incriminating circumstances is incomplete and contains inadmissible evidence?
  • When does the pointation of a crime scene or recovery of an object qualify as a valid discovery under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Malik vs Govt KPK2022 PHC 504 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-08Read full judgment →
• Adnan Aziz Ahmed vs Rakil Ahmed Zaman & others2022 SHC 138 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-02Read full judgment →
• Adnan Ahmed vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary to the Government of Sindh and 8 others2022 PLD Sindh 542 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-17
  Combined Competitive Examinationdomicile certificatepermanent residence certificateSindh Urban Quotalocus poenitentiaeservice mattersconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking declarations and inquiries regarding alleged illegalities in the Combined Competitive Examination (CCE) 2013 conducted by the Sindh Public Service Commission. The petitioner alleged that private respondents were appointed on the Sindh Urban Quota despite possessing fake, multiple, or out-of-province domiciles. The core legal question was whether the private respondents held multiple or bogus domicile certificates and whether they were unlawfully appointed on that basis. The court held that the official authorities duly verified the domiciles and permanent residence certificates (PRCs) of the respondents, finding them genuine or properly surrendered in accordance with the law prior to fresh applications. The court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that vested rights of appointees acquired after completing all codal formalities and verification cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn based on mere assumptions, as protected by the doctrine of locus poenitentiae.

  Questions settled

  • Whether candidates possessing domiciles from other provinces can acquire a valid domicile of Sindh for public service quotas upon lawfully surrendering their previous domiciles?
  • Can appointment orders duly issued after fulfilling all codal formalities and verification be withdrawn based on unverified allegations?
  • Does the doctrine of locus poenitentiae bar the arbitrary cancellation of vested rights acquired through lawful appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Abbasi vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 376 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-28
  criminal appealretracted confessionqatl-i-amdbenefit of the doubtjudicial confessioncapital punishmentcorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court for the offence of qatl-i-amd. The core legal question concerned whether a retracted judicial confession, unsupported by independent corroborative evidence, could sustain a capital conviction. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court determined that the appellant’s judicial confession was involuntary, as it was obtained through coercion, specifically the detention of the appellant's brothers by police. Furthermore, the court emphasized that even if a confession were voluntary, it requires independent, unimpeachable corroboration to support a conviction, which was absent in this case. The court noted significant procedural irregularities in the recording of the confession and the lack of circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the crime. Reaffirming the golden principle of criminal jurisprudence, the court held that the benefit of the doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession be the sole basis for a conviction in a capital case?
  • Does the detention of an accused's family members by police render a subsequent judicial confession involuntary?
  • Is independent corroborative evidence required to support a retracted judicial confession?
  • Does the benefit of the doubt in criminal cases constitute a right of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Administrator Islamabad Club vs Capital Development Authority and Others2022 MLD 1869 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-23Read full judgment →
• Additional Collector, Model Customs Collectorate, Multan vs M/s Reliance2022 LHC 4400 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →