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.

• Additional Collector, Model Customs Collectorate, Multan vs Messrs2022 PTD 1423 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-25Read full judgment →
• Adam Sugar Mills Ltd vs Cane Commissioner Punjab, etc2022 LHC 2597 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-13Read full judgment →
• Abrar Ahmed Siddiqi vs The State2022 PCRLJ 995 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-22
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquiryattempted murderconflicting versionsself-inflicted injurynon-bailable offenceprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail for the applicant, charged under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly stabbing his former wife. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the conflicting versions of the incident, specifically the complainant's allegation of assault versus the statements of eye-witnesses suggesting the injury was self-inflicted. The Court held that because the weapon was not recovered and independent eye-witnesses supported the defense's version of a self-inflicted injury, the case necessitated further inquiry. The Court emphasized that when a case calls for further inquiry, bail is a right rather than a concession. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not mandate the refusal of bail if a tentative assessment of the evidence reveals a case for further inquiry. Consequently, as the investigation was complete and no risk of evidence tampering existed, the Court confirmed the applicant's interim bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of conflicting versions regarding the cause of an injury constitute a case for further inquiry?
  • Can bail be refused under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the case warrants further inquiry?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right when a case requires further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Rehman vs Farooq Umar Bhoja and others2022 PCRLJ 1587 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-20
  speaking orderjudicial discretioncriminal revisionQatl-bis-sababQatl-i-amdtrial court procedurereasoned judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from a trial court order that, without providing detailed reasoning, concluded that the alleged offences in a fatal plane crash case fell under Section 322, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (Qatl-bis-sabab) rather than Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (Qatl-i-amd). The petitioner challenged this reclassification, arguing that the trial court failed to apply its mind to the evidence and the gravity of the incident. The High Court held that the impugned order was legally unsustainable because it lacked a "speaking" quality, failing to provide rational reasons or link the evidence—specifically the findings of a Judicial Commission—to the legal conclusion reached. The Court emphasized the fundamental principle that judicial pronouncements must be "speaking orders," manifesting that the court has applied its mind to the issues. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, directing the trial court to provide a reasoned, judicious determination based on the material on record, without being influenced by the High Court's observations.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court order that fails to provide reasons for its conclusion regarding the applicability of specific penal sections legally sustainable?
  • Does a judicial order require a detailed explanation of the evidence and material on record to be considered a valid judicial verdict?
  • Can an appellate court set aside a trial court's order if it lacks the necessary reasoning to justify the decision reached?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Iqbal vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 4 others2022 PCRLJ 1557 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-10
  anti-corruption establishmentjurisdictionprivate personpreliminary inquirypublic servantscheduled offencesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a private person, filed a constitutional petition seeking protection against the initiation of three inquiries by the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sindh, and any subsequent registration of an FIR or arrest, on the primary ground that the Anti-Corruption Establishment lacks jurisdiction to conduct inquiries against a private individual. The core legal question was whether the Anti-Corruption Establishment has the jurisdiction to hold preliminary inquiries or investigate a private person associated with a public servant in the commission of a scheduled offence. The Sindh High Court held that under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961 and the Sindh Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Act, 1991, the Anti-Corruption Establishment has the power to conduct preliminary inquiries not only against public servants but also against any private person who has acted jointly, abetted, or conspired with a public servant in the commission of scheduled offences. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Anti-Corruption Establishment have jurisdiction to conduct inquiries against a private person associated with a public servant?
  • Can the Anti-Corruption Establishment investigate attempts, abetments, and conspiracies involving private persons and public servants under the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961?
  • Whether the Sindh Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Act, 1991 extends the domain of the Anti-Corruption Establishment to private individuals acting jointly with public servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs Additional Sessions Judge etc2022 PLJ Lahore 87 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-11Read full judgment →
• Abid Hameed vs Additional Sessions Judge etc2022 LHC 8550, 2024 PLD Lahore 476 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-28Read full judgment →
• Abid Farooq vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2022 PLJ Lahore 970 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-12Read full judgment →
• Abid Amin vs National Accountability Bureau2022 SCP 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-17
  NAB OrdinanceState Bank of PakistanSection 31-DSection 31-Cdefaulted loansrestructured loansrescheduled loansquashment of referencequashment of proceedingseconomic justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan decided consolidated petitions challenging a Sindh High Court judgment concerning NAB Reference No. 21/2017 against corporate directors and NBP bank officials regarding the restructuring of defaulted loans. The core legal questions pertained to the applicability and legislative intent of Sections 31-C and 31-D of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 (NAB Ordinance), specifically whether NAB can initiate inquiries, investigations, or proceedings regarding defaulted, restructured, or rescheduled loans without a reference from the Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that Section 31-D provides broad protection against NAB proceedings involving defaulted or rescheduled loans without prior reference from the SBP. The Court clarified that 'restructuring' encompasses 'rescheduling', and unilateral intervention by NAB without SBP approval undermines fiscal governance, economic stability, and the constitutional right to trade and business. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the directors' appeals, quashed the proceedings and NAB Reference against them for lack of SBP reference under Section 31-D, and dismissed NAB's petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether NAB can initiate an inquiry, investigation, or proceeding regarding defaulted or rescheduled loans without a reference from the Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan under Section 31-D of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Whether the term 'restructuring' includes 'rescheduling' for the purposes of Sections 31-C and 31-D of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Can an Accountability Court take cognizance of an offence or allow NAB proceedings to continue against loan defaulters or bank officials when mandatory approval or reference from the State Bank of Pakistan was not obtained?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Ali and 2 others vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 286 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-04-05
  criminal revisionidentification paradestatement under section 164inadmissible evidencebenefit of doubtkidnappingpolice disclosureacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioners challenging their conviction and sentences under Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which were upheld by the appellate court. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of identification parades conducted without specific role attribution or adherence to established safeguards, the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without the presence of the accused or opportunity for cross-examination, and the admissibility of police disclosures under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to inherent defects in the identification parade, inadmissible statements, and dishonest improvements made by witnesses. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the petitioners were acquitted of the charge, with directions for their immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an identification parade loses its evidentiary value if witnesses fail to describe the specific role played by the accused during the occurrence?
  • Can a statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be treated as substantive evidence if it was not recorded in the presence of the accused and without an opportunity for cross-examination?
  • Are admissions and disclosures made before the police admissible in evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when no new facts are discovered as a consequence thereof?
  • What is the duty of the trial court regarding the immediate determination and exclusion of inadmissible evidence tendered during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdus Salam Khan Barki and another vs Mian Pervaiz Akhtar and another2022 PLD Islamabad 346 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-27Read full judgment →
• Abdur Raqib & 04 others vs Secretary E&SE KPK & others2022 PHC 462 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim vs State & another2022 PHC 322 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-17Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim etc vs The State etc2022 PHC 390 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan Usmani vs Security & Exchange Commission of Pakistan2022 LHC 3962, 2022 CLD 821 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-16
  rectification of registercompanies acttransfer of shareslimitation actfraudulent transfersufficient causecompany directorship
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Section 126 of the Companies Act, 2017 sought the rectification of the register of members of a private limited company, the transfer of 29,900 shares back to the petitioner, the restoration of his directorship, and the annulment of proceedings conducted by the new management. The petitioner claimed his shares were transferred fraudulently and his resignation forged while he was abroad. The respondents contended that the petitioner voluntarily resigned, transferred his shares in 2008 via a valid transfer deed, and that the petition was barred by laches and limitation. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to prove fraud or absence of sufficient cause, that the transfer and resignation were duly executed and recorded in statutory returns, and that an application under Section 126 is governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, requiring it to be filed within three years of the right to apply accruing, which commences from the date of the disputed transaction and not from the subsequent date of alleged knowledge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for rectification of a company register under Section 126 of the Companies Act, 2017 is subject to the law of limitation?
  • Does limitation for filing a petition under Section 126 of the Companies Act, 2017 start from the date of the disputed transaction or from the date of knowledge?
  • What constitutes 'sufficient cause' and 'fraudulent' omission or entry of a member's name under Section 126 of the Companies Act, 2017?
  • Can a board of directors register a transfer of shares without a properly executed instrument of transfer under the Companies Act, 2017?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Zahoor vs Judge Family Court, Multan and another2022 PLJ Lahore 584 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Zaheer vs The State and another2022 MLD 577 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-11
  criminal appealbenefit of the doubtbank fraudinadmissible evidencephotocopy documentsacquittalburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for fraudulent bank transactions under sections 420/468/471/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. The Court found that the prosecution relied heavily on inadmissible photocopied documents, failed to produce direct evidence linking the appellant to the alleged fraud, and did not conduct a forensic examination of the relevant computer systems. Furthermore, the audit report cited was inconclusive regarding criminal intent, and the investigation appeared deficient. The Court emphasized the principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, not concession. Finding significant gaps in the prosecution's case and noting the potential for the appellant to have been a scapegoat, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right or concession?
  • Are photocopies of documents admissible as evidence in a criminal trial without verification?
  • Does a failure to conduct forensic examination of electronic evidence create reasonable doubt in a fraud case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution relies solely on inconclusive audit reports and lacks direct evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs The State and another2022 SCP 220, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 467, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 942, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-07-27
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryevidentiary value of videoforensic examinationdelayed nominationpersonal libertycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the Peshawar High Court's order dismissing his post-arrest bail application regarding charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given his delayed nomination in the crime report, the absence of recovery, and the evidentiary status of an alleged confessionary video interview. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail, holding that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court established that a delayed nomination in a supplementary statement, without a disclosed source of information, necessitates further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an alleged confessionary video interview lacks evidentiary value unless its genuineness is established through forensic examination, audit, or test, as modern technology facilitates tampering. Emphasizing that personal liberty is a constitutional right, the Court concluded that continued incarceration pending trial was unjustified when the prosecution's case required further investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delayed nomination in a supplementary statement without a disclosed source of information entitle an accused to further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an alleged confessionary video interview be treated as evidence without forensic examination or audit?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution relies on evidence that requires forensic verification to establish its genuineness?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs Member Board Of Revenue and others2022 MLD 488 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs Additional District Judge etc2022 LHC 3027, 2024 YLR 824 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid Jehajo vs Punhoon2022 CLC 1386 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid Alias Budho vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1273 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-30
  chance witnessbenefit of doubtchain of custodyDNA profilingocular accountcapital sentencerecovery evidencemedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder and related offences. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution’s ocular account, the validity of recovery proceedings, and the admissibility of DNA evidence. The Lahore High Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court established that witnesses who are not residents of the crime scene are "chance witnesses" and must provide a plausible explanation for their presence; their failure to do so, combined with unnatural conduct, such as remaining silent spectators during a violent attack, renders their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the Court ruled that recovery evidence lacking independent witnesses violates Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Regarding forensic evidence, the Court held that DNA reports are inadmissible without proof of an unbroken chain of custody. Finally, the Court reiterated that medical evidence is merely confirmatory and cannot identify a culprit, and that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of 'chance witnesses' be relied upon if they fail to explain their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a recovery violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a DNA analysis report admissible if the prosecution fails to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the samples?
  • Can medical evidence alone be used to identify a culprit in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed, etc vs Mst. Rubina Shaheen2022 PLJ Lahore 974 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed and another vs Mst. Rubina Shaheen2022 CLC 1754 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Jatoi vs Chief Minister Sindh through Principal Secretary, Chief2022 PLJ SC 129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil serviceperson specific postpromotion eligibilityjurisdiction of service tribunaldepartmental selectionequal treatmentdiscriminatory legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a service dispute between batch-mates in the Health Department, Government of Sindh. The appellant was placed in a surplus pool following structural changes and subsequently absorbed back into the department. The provincial authorities amended rules to create a person-specific post in BPS-20 tailored exclusively for the appellant, subsequently promoting him without considering his senior batch-mates, including the respondent. The Sindh Service Tribunal set aside the appellant's promotion to BPS-20. On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the tribunal had jurisdiction despite the bar under Section 4(b) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973 regarding fitness determinations, and whether creating a person-specific post violated constitutional principles. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdictional bar under Section 4(b) applies only when the departmental authority has considered all eligible candidates and determined fitness, not where senior eligible officers were excluded from consideration altogether. The Court laid down that person-specific amendments to rules and creation of custom posts to favor individual civil servants violates Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory bar under Section 4(b) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973 apply to a service appeal where an eligible civil servant was completely excluded from consideration for promotion?
  • Can the competent authority amend recruitment rules and create a person-specific post to promote a single civil servant without considering senior batch-mates?
  • Does the creation of a person-specific civil service post to grant promotion to an individual violate Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sajjad Khan and 07 others vs Sindh Building Control Authority and 072022 SHC 224 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-30
  service lawsuspension from servicedisciplinary proceedingsnatural justiceshow cause noticereinstatementdepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the suspension of the petitioners from service and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA) without due process. The core legal questions were whether the suspension was valid in the absence of a timely charge sheet and whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice. The Court held that if a competent authority fails to frame a charge sheet within three months of a suspension order, and fails to issue a reasoned order extending the suspension, the employee gains a right to reinstatement. However, this right is not absolute if the employee fails to exercise it before the charge sheet is framed or the suspension is validly extended. The Court emphasized that suspension is an intervening, temporary arrangement, not a punishment. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the petition by consent, remanding the matter to the competent authority to constitute a new committee and conduct fresh disciplinary proceedings, ensuring the petitioners are afforded an opportunity of being heard, while setting aside the previous inquiry report.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee have a right to reinstatement if a charge sheet is not framed within three months of a suspension order?
  • Can an employer renew a suspension order after the expiry of the initial three-month period if the employee has not yet exercised their right to reinstatement?
  • Is a show cause notice considered a punishment under service law?
  • Does the failure to frame a charge sheet within the statutory period automatically revoke a suspension order?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Saboor vs The State through A.G. KPK and another2022 PSC CRI 189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-25
  post-arrest bailSection 489-F PPCdishonored chequeprohibitory clausefurther inquirycivil recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed against the decision of the Peshawar High Court denying post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The allegation pertained to the issuance of a dishonored cheque amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- given in the course of business transactions. The core legal question was whether post-arrest bail should be granted where the maximum punishment for the offense is three years, placing it outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and granted bail. The Court affirmed that for offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., grant of bail is the rule and refusal an exception. Furthermore, Section 489-F PPC is meant to penalize a criminal act rather than serve as a mechanism for civil debt recovery.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal an exception in offenses that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  • Can Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be utilized as a tool for the recovery of disputed civil amounts?
  • Does a case fall under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. for further inquiry when a dishonored cheque dispute arises out of a factual business controversy?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Saboor vs The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another2022 SCMR 592, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 81, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 57 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-25
  post-arrest baildishonored chequeprohibitory clausefurther inquirySection 489-F PPCbusiness disputerecovery of moneycriminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan was filed against the Peshawar High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was charged under Section 489-F PPC for issuing a dishonored cheque of Rs. 10,000,000. The petitioner contended the cheque was for security in a business dispute and that he had been incarcerated for over six months. The Supreme Court considered whether bail should be granted for an offence carrying a maximum three-year sentence. The Court held that for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. It further clarified that Section 489-F PPC is intended to punish criminal acts, not to serve as a tool for debt recovery, for which civil remedies exist under Order XXXVII C.P.C. Finding that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. and that liberty is a precious right, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail.

  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Saboor vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2022 LHC 6324, 2023 PTD 1434, 2024 PLD Lahore 244, 2024 PTD 517, 2022 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The State and another2022 SCMR 526, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-09
  post-arrest bailcyber stalkingprohibitory clauseprivacy intrusionleave to appealdiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving cyber stalking and transmission of defamatory messages and photographs of the complainant's daughter-in-law to her husband, registered through the Federal Investigating Agency. The core legal question is whether post-arrest bail should be granted as a rule when the alleged offenses fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, even if the privacy of a citizen has been grievously intruded and investigation is complete. The Supreme Court held that while bail is ordinarily granted for offenses outside the prohibitory clause upon conclusion of investigation, this rule is subject to limitations. The Court declined leave to appeal in its discretion given the gravity of the intrusion into family privacy and the peril posed to the marriage, while directing the trial court to conclude the trial within four months. The key principle laid down is that the general rule favoring bail for offenses outside the prohibitory clause is not absolute and can be denied in the exercise of judicial discretion under exceptional circumstances involving severe invasion of privacy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted as a matter of rule for offenses falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 upon completion of investigation?
  • Can the court refuse post-arrest bail for an offense outside the prohibitory clause due to the gravity of the intrusion into family privacy?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Additional District Judge-I, Rajanpur and 2 Others2022 MLD 2051 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Khan through Special Attorney and others vs The Member2022 CLC 1166 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and others vs Secretary, Ministry of Communication etc2022 SCP 264, 2023 PLC (C.S) 949, 2022 SCMR 2047 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-18
  deputationistsspecial allowanceregular employeesterms and conditions of serviceSupreme Court of Pakistancivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the Islamabad High Court's judgment dismissing the petitioners' writ petition for special allowances at par with regular employees of the National Highways and Motorways Police (NH&MP). The petitioners had served in the NH&MP as deputationists and sought a monthly extra pay allowance and retrospective daily allowances. The core legal question was whether deputationist employees possess a legal right to claim special allowances and benefits exclusively sanctioned for regular employees, despite having distinct service terms and already enjoying separate deputation benefits. The Supreme Court held that regular and deputationist employees form distinct categories, and deputationists governed by specific terms and conditions cannot claim allowances meant solely for regular staff, particularly when they already receive separate deputation and special allowances. The Court laid down the principle that deputationists cannot claim parity in allowances with regular employees unless expressly provided in their terms of deputation, and creating additional financial burdens on the public exchequer without a foundational legal right is impermissible.

  Questions settled

  • Whether deputationist employees are entitled to claim special allowances admissible exclusively to regular employees of a department?
  • Can deputationists claim parity in terms and conditions with regular employees when they are governed by a distinct office memorandum?
  • Does a deputationist have a vested legal right to demand retrospective financial benefits not provided in their initial terms of deputation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and others vs Mst. Allah Wasai and others2022 SCMR 399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-11
  inheritance disputeMuslim personal lawSunni sectShia sectburden of proofpresumption of factlimitation perioddeclaratory suitco-sharerouster
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerned an inheritance dispute over the estate of late Taj Muhammad between his consanguine sister, Mst. Talay, and his real mother, Mst. Allah Wasai. The core legal questions were the deceased's religious sect (Sunni or Shia) for inheritance purposes and whether Mst. Talay's suit for declaration of inheritance rights was time-barred. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Appellate Court's decree in favor of Mst. Talay. The Court held that Taj Muhammad belonged to the Sunni sect, affirming the principle that a Muslim in the Indo-Pak Sub-continent is presumed to be Sunni (Hanafi Law) unless good evidence proves otherwise, and that the mother failed to rebut this presumption. Regarding limitation, the Court ruled that a wrong inheritance mutation in revenue records does not constitute an ouster of a co-heir. The six-year limitation period under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, for a declaratory suit by a co-sharer against another co-sharer, commences from the denial of rights or actual ouster, not merely the date of the mutation.

  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and another vs The State2022 PLD Lahore 235 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-23
  narcotics smugglinginternational cooperationmutual legal assistanceadmissibility of foreign documentsaffidavit evidencecontrol of narcotic substancescriminal conspiracyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for drug trafficking and abetment relating to an intercepted 11.79-ton shipment of hashish in Canada. The core legal questions involve the procedural requirements for international cooperation, mutual legal assistance, the admissibility of foreign investigation records and affidavits without formal recording of evidence or judicial scrutiny, and the application of the principle of double criminality. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to follow mandatory statutory procedures for evidence-gathering under Section 59 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and that foreign investigative affidavits and uncertified documents are inadmissible in a criminal trial without proper certification or judicial scrutiny. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, laying down the principle that foreign investigative records and affidavits cannot be used as substantive evidence in criminal trials in Pakistan without fulfilling statutory prerequisites and formal judicial recording.

  Questions settled

  • What is the mandatory procedure for initiating a foreign evidence-gathering request under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Whether an affidavit or investigation report from a foreign agency is admissible as substantive evidence in a criminal trial without formal recording of testimony and judicial scrutiny?
  • Can uncertified foreign documents and police records be utilized to convict an accused under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Whether the failure to obtain a High Court evidence-gathering order under Section 59 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 vitiates the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaque Brehmani vs Niaz alias Makhan and 3 others2022 YLR 1737 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-10
  criminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubtcontradictions in evidencepresumption of innocencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an acquittal judgment passed by the trial court in a case arising from an armed affray resulting in a homicide. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt, or whether material contradictions, deviations from the initial report, and improvements in witness testimonies warranted an acquittal. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's evidence was fraught with significant discrepancies, material contradictions, and improvements, leaving the presence and specific roles of the accused highly doubtful. The court reiterated the principle that an order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, and appellate courts should not interfere unless the trial court's findings suffer from perversity, arbitrariness, or cause a miscarriage of justice. Finding no such infirmity, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • When will an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by a trial court?
  • Does an acquittal reinforce the presumption of innocence of the accused?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions and dishonest improvements in the testimonies of eye-witnesses in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs The State and 2 others2022 PCRLJ 741 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-06
  transfer of criminal casereasonable apprehension of biasjudicial independencepost-arrest bailadverse judicial ordersfrivolous applicationcosts
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under section 526, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the transfer of a bail application from the court of an Additional Sessions Judge to another court, based on the petitioner's apprehension of bias stemming from earlier adverse judicial orders. The core legal question was whether adverse judicial orders or vague allegations of collusion are sufficient grounds to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias warranting the transfer of a case from a court of competent jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition with exemplary costs, holding that adverse judicial orders alone do not constitute a valid ground for transfer, and that allegations of judicial bias must be supported by strong, exceptional, and convincing evidence rather than mere suspicion, bald statements, or frivolous assertions. The key principles laid down are that the threshold for proving judicial bias is exceptionally high to protect the independence and dignity of the judiciary, and that litigants who level scandalous and baseless allegations against judges to forum-shop or harass them must be dealt with firmly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether adverse judicial orders passed against a party constitute sufficient ground for the transfer of a case under section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What constitutes a 'reasonable apprehension' of bias required for transferring a criminal case from one court to another?
  • Is a bald statement or vague allegation of collusion with the opposing party enough to establish judicial bias?
  • Can a litigant be burdened with costs for filing a frivolous transfer application containing scandalous accusations against a judge?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq and another vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 595 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-01
  benefit of doubtmurdercriminal appealprivate complaintmedical evidence contradictiondelay in FIRacquittal of co-accusedreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve evaluating whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, considering significant delays in reporting and filing the private complaint, contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and the legal effect of the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence. The Lahore High Court held that unexplained delays in the FIR and private complaint, major discrepancies regarding firing distances and medical findings, and the lack of corroborative evidence rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement. The key principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and filing a private complaint fatally damage the credibility of the prosecution case?
  • Can the ocular account of eyewitnesses be relied upon when it directly contradicts the medical evidence regarding the distance and nature of firearm injuries?
  • Whether the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence requires independent corroboration before the testimony can be used against remaining accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt regarding their guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Raziq vs Muhammad Rafiq and others2022 CLC 1048 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaq vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 953 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-13
  post-arrest bailchild marriagevalidity of nikahage of pubertyrushdfurther inquirysui juris
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the alleged abduction of a minor girl for sexual desires. The core legal question revolved around the validity of the Nikah contracted by the alleged victim, who was 16 years and 5 months old, and whether the case warranted further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 given the conflicting statements and legal anomalies concerning the minimum age of marriage. The court held that while the victim did not qualify under the Hanafi school of thought and was not sui juris at the relevant time, the existence of a Nikahnama and an affidavit executed by her in contrast to her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 rendered the case one of further inquiry. The petition was allowed and the petitioner was granted bail. The court laid down the principle that besides attaining puberty, the requirement of 'rushd' (maturity of mind and capacity to form a reasonable judgment) is essential for a valid contract of marriage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Nikah contracted by a girl aged 16 years and 5 months is valid under Hanafi jurisprudence?
  • Does a Muslim female require the consent of a Wali if she is not sui juris at the time of contracting marriage?
  • Is a case rendered one of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a Nikahnama and affidavit are contradicted by a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the legal criteria regarding 'rushd' and puberty for a valid marriage contract in Islam?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaq and others vs Iftikhar Hussain and others2022 MLD 1378 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf and others vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary2022 PLC 1496, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1494 · Balochistan High Court
  recruitment processlegitimate expectationselection committeelocus poenitentiaeconstitutional petitionadministrative delayvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of Constitutional Petitions challenging the decision of the Balochistan Mines and Minerals Department to re-advertise posts for which the petitioners had already been selected. The petitioners had successfully qualified through written tests and interviews conducted by a duly constituted Selection/Recruitment Committee, which subsequently recommended them for appointment. The respondents justified the re-advertisement on the grounds of administrative delay in finalizing the recruitment process. The core legal question was whether the government could arbitrarily cancel a completed selection process and re-advertise posts due to administrative delays, despite the petitioners having acquired a vested right to appointment. The Court held that once a selection process is completed and candidates are recommended, the process cannot be arbitrarily upset. The Court ruled that administrative delays or lapses in clerical formalities do not justify the cancellation of a valid selection process. Consequently, the Court accepted the petitions, directing the respondents to issue appointment orders to the petitioners, establishing the principle that a legitimate expectation of appointment arises once the selection process is finalized.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department arbitrarily re-advertise posts after a selection committee has already recommended candidates for appointment?
  • Does an administrative delay in finalizing a recruitment process justify the cancellation of a completed selection?
  • Does a candidate acquire a vested right to appointment once a selection process is completed and they are recommended by a recruitment committee?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf and 4 others vs Director Estate, Quetta Development Authority2022 CLC 139 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Zahoor-ud-Din (deceased) through his Legal Heirs &2022 LHC 7123, 2024 CLC 1060 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Province of the Punjab etc2022 LHC 7711 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Lahore Development Authority through D.G. and others2022 PLJ Lahore 148 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed & another vs Haji Muhammad Ramzan & another2022 LHC 2705 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim etc vs Mst. Sitara Shaheen2022 PHC 476 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Raheem Shah vs Government Of Sindh through Secretary Ministry of Interior and 5 others2022 P Cr. L J 661 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-04
  quashing of charge sheetinvestigationtransposition of accusedFIRself-defencecriminal procedureInvestigating Officer
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought to quash a charge sheet filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arguing that as the original complainant, his version of events (self-defence) should be the sole basis for the trial, and that his transposition as an accused was illegal. The core legal question was whether an Investigating Officer is bound by the complainant's version in an FIR when evidence gathered during investigation suggests otherwise, and whether a complainant can be transposed as an accused in the final report. The Court held that an Investigating Officer is not bound by the narrative in the FIR but must unearth the actual facts based on evidence. Consequently, if the investigation reveals the complainant's involvement, their status can be legally transposed to that of an accused. The Court affirmed that the Investigating Officer's duty is to collect evidence from all sources to form an independent opinion. The application was dismissed, as the trial court had already taken cognizance based on sufficient evidence, and no illegality was found in the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Investigating Officer bound by the version of events narrated in the First Information Report?
  • Can a complainant be transposed as an accused in the final report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the discovery of evidence contrary to the complainant's version authorize the Investigating Officer to change the status of the accused in the final report?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qudoos vs Commandant Frontier Constabulary, Khyber2022 SCP 408 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Frontier ConstabularyCivil ServantFederal Service TribunalService AppealActus curiae neminem gravabitEx debito justitiaeJurisdictionRemand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the restoration of a service appeal for an employee of the Frontier Constabulary (FC). Initially, the petitioner’s appeal was abated by the Federal Service Tribunal following a Supreme Court judgment that excluded FC employees from the definition of civil servants. Subsequently, the Supreme Court clarified that FC employees are indeed civil servants. The petitioner approached the Peshawar High Court, which remitted the matter to the Tribunal to be treated as a service appeal. However, the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application for restoration on technical grounds. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the application. Relying on the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit, the Court emphasized that no party should suffer due to a court's procedural error or change in legal interpretation. The Court held that the High Court’s order remitting the case was binding and that the Tribunal was obligated to decide the matter on its merits rather than dismissing it on technicalities. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal was directed to adjudicate the matter as a service appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees of the Frontier Constabulary considered civil servants for the purpose of service appeals?
  • Does the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit require a tribunal to restore an appeal that was previously abated due to a change in legal interpretation?
  • Can a High Court remit a writ petition to the Federal Service Tribunal to be treated as a service appeal?
  • Is a judgment of the Supreme Court declaring a question of law binding on all courts under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Khan vs Pakistan Post & another2022 IHC 88 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum and others vs Ghazala Ismail and others2022 YLR 1328 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum vs Govt of KpK2022 PHC 448 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadoos & others vs PHA and others2022 PHC 382 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs The State2022 MLD 469 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07
  post-arrest bailCNS Actheroin recoveryfurther enquirystatutory delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Sindh High Court through a post-arrest bail application in a criminal case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question revolves around whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail where the recovered quantity of heroin is 680 grams, falling under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and the trial has not progressed significantly. The court held that the case falls within the purview of further enquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly noting the statutory threshold and the delay in the trial where the accused has been behind bars for seven months without framing of a charge. The key principle laid down is that where the recovered narcotic quantity falls outside the restrictive prohibitory clause and trial proceedings are unduly delayed without fault of the accused, the case warrants the concession of post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether recovery of 680 grams of heroin under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 makes a case one of further enquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does prolonged incarceration without framing of a charge constitute a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 611 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-08
  suspension of sentencepost-arrest bailstatutory delayleave to appealimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition filed under Section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking suspension of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life awarded to the petitioner Abdul Qadir, whose death sentence was earlier converted to life imprisonment by the High Court, and who has been granted leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question is whether the sentence of a convict whose death penalty has been commuted to life imprisonment and who has been granted leave to appeal by the Supreme Court can be suspended when he has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration and there is no likelihood of an early hearing of his appeal. The court held that where the petitioner has served over thirteen years of imprisonment including remissions and the appeal before the Supreme Court is not likely to be heard soon, the sentence of imprisonment for life is to be suspended pending the final decision of the appeal. The key principle laid down is that prolonged incarceration without the prospect of an early hearing of an appeal pending before the Supreme Court constitutes a valid ground for suspending a life sentence under Section 426(2-B), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence of imprisonment for life be suspended under Section 426(2-B), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 pending the decision of an appeal before the Supreme Court?
  • Does prolonged incarceration without the prospect of an early hearing justify the suspension of sentence?
  • What are the conditions for suspending a sentence where leave to appeal has been granted by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Khattak and another vs Muhammad Irshad2022 PHC 406 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-26
  labour lawmisconductminimum wagesreinstatementindustrial relationsfreedom of associationdomestic inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This labour appeal challenged the order of the Labour Court, Mardan, which had reinstated a respondent-employee dismissed for alleged misconduct. The core legal question was whether the respondent’s actions—specifically, advocating for the implementation of minimum wage notifications and communicating with the labour department—constituted 'misconduct' justifying dismissal, or if such actions were protected rights. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove the allegations of inciting an illegal strike or subversive behaviour. The Labour Court’s decision to reinstate the respondent was upheld. The Court established that merely demanding secured legal rights, such as minimum wages, or addressing grievances to the labour department, does not constitute misconduct. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Labour Courts possess the jurisdiction to look behind departmental dismissal orders to assess the legality and propriety of the penalty imposed. It was emphasized that suppressing a worker’s voice for claiming legal rights violates the fundamental right of association and cannot be countenanced, as the management must prove the charges of misconduct during a domestic inquiry beyond mere procedural compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Does advocating for the implementation of minimum wages constitute misconduct by an employee?
  • Can a Labour Court examine the underlying evidence of a domestic inquiry to determine if a dismissal was justified?
  • Is it permissible for an employer to dismiss an employee for addressing grievances to the labour department regarding legal rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir and 2 others vs Jahangir Khan and others2022 SCMR 321, 2022 PLJ SC 204, 2022 PSC 697 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-25
  limitation periodreview jurisdictionmerger of orderscivil revisionpetition for leave to appealcondonation of delaycompetence of review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a review petition and an underlying civil revision petition by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the dismissal of a review petition merges with the original order, thereby extending the limitation period for filing a petition for leave to appeal against the original judgment. The Supreme Court held that where a review petition is dismissed without altering, reversing, or modifying the original decree or order, no merger occurs. Consequently, the original order remains the effective order for the purpose of further appeal, and the limitation period for challenging that original order is not extended by the filing of a review petition. The Court affirmed that parties must challenge the original decree within the time stipulated by law, regardless of the subsequent dismissal of a review application. As the petitioners failed to challenge the original revisional order within the prescribed limitation period, the Court refused leave to appeal, finding the petitions time-barred and the review jurisdiction improperly invoked.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a review petition result in the merger of the review order with the original order?
  • Does the filing of a review petition extend the limitation period for filing a petition for leave to appeal against the original order?
  • What are the parameters for invoking review jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against an original order if the limitation period expired while the party was pursuing an incompetent review petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nasir vs The State2022 YLR 2117 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-22
  narcotics controlsafe custodysafe transitindependent witnessesbenefit of doubtchemical examiner reportcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, recorded by the trial court. The core legal questions involved the reliability of police testimony based on spy information without associating independent witnesses, the establishment of safe custody and safe transit of the recovered narcotic substance to the chemical examiner, and the benefit of reasonable doubt arising from material contradictions and unexplained delays. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the unexplained failure to join available independent witnesses, delayed transmission of the sample to the chemical examiner without proving safe custody, and material contradictions in evidence. The court laid down the principle that an unexplained delay in sending samples for chemical examination, coupled with the failure to establish safe custody and transit, alongside a lack of independent corroboration in narcotics cases, entitles the accused to an acquittal based on the benefit of reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the police to associate independent witnesses despite their availability at the spot renders a narcotics recovery doubtful?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered narcotic samples to the chemical examiner vitiate the conviction?
  • Is the prosecution required to affirmatively establish the safe custody and safe transit of recovered contraband samples to the chemical examiner?
  • Can a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nafay vs Government of Balochistan and another2022 PLJ Quetta 130, 2024 CLC 1437 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-04-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs Province of Sindh and others2022 SHC 260 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik alias Badshah Khan vs Addl. District Judge & 5 others2022 LHC 6079, 2022 [M] CLR 1465 · Lahore High Court · 2022-08-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Afridi vs The State and Abdul Latif Afridi2022 PSC CRI 173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-08
  cancellation of bailpre-arrest bailabetmentconspiracyconfessional statementconcurrent jurisdictionco-accused statementcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted by the Peshawar High Court to the respondent in a criminal case involving charges of murder and abetment. The core legal questions were whether the respondent’s direct approach to the High Court for bail was permissible and whether the evidence, specifically a co-accused's confessional statement, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy against the respondent. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court possessed concurrent jurisdiction and acted reasonably, given the victim was a member of the district judiciary. Regarding the merits, the Court held that the confessional statement of a co-accused, in isolation, is insufficient to establish abetment under Section 107 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without additional corroborating evidence. The Court affirmed that bail cancellation requires proof of misuse of liberty, illegality in the granting order, or interference with the investigation, none of which were established. The judgment reinforces that considerations for granting bail and cancelling bail operate on distinct legal footings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner directly approach the High Court for pre-arrest bail despite the concurrent jurisdiction of the Sessions Court?
  • Is the confessional statement of a co-accused sufficient, in isolation, to establish a charge of conspiracy against another accused?
  • What are the essential legal grounds required for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted?
  • Does the statement of a co-accused recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute substantive evidence against another accused without corroborating material?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed alias Bohra and another vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 186 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-23
  extraditionsextra-judicial confessionpolice confessionbenefit of the doubtanti-terrorismchild murderrapecircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a six-year-old child, resulting in death sentences and life imprisonments. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given the absence of direct eyewitnesses, reliable last-seen evidence, and admissible extra-judicial confessions. The Court held that the extra-judicial confessions made to police officers while in custody were inadmissible in evidence, that recoveries and circumstantial evidence were uncorroborated or implausible, and that the prosecution failed to establish a secure link between the appellants and the crime. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, answered the death sentence confirmation reference in the negative, and acquitted the appellants on the basis of the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that heinousness of an offense cannot blur the standards of proof, and an accused must be acquitted if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt regarding their guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Are extra-judicial confessions made by an accused to police officers while in custody admissible in evidence?
  • Does the heinousness of a crime permit a court to relax the standard of proof required for conviction?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of disputed recoveries and retracted police confessions without independent corroborating evidence?
  • What is the effect of failing to exhibit a DNA report when semen is detected on the victim's clothes in a rape case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Maalik vs Abdul Sattar2022 LHC 4191 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif And others vs Secretary Worker Welfare Board Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa at Peshawar And others2022 PHC 654 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Latif and 02 others vs Province of Sidh and 02 others2022 SHC 172 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kader, Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Siraj Cochinwala, Bilqees Bai, Waqar Ahmed, Abdul Rasheed, Muhammad Yousuf, Rafiq Essa, Asif Balwani and Tehmina Munaf vs Court of Xth Additional District Judge South Karachi2022 SHC 314 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Khameed vs Muhammad Shabbir etc2022 PLJ Islamabad 54 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq (decd) thr. LRs vs Fazal ur Rehman and others2022 SCP 192, 2022 SCMR 1665, 2023 PSC 115, 2022 PLJ SC 416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-30
  InheritanceLimited EstateCustomary LawShariahResiduariesFull SisterGiftSuccession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the inheritance of property originally owned by Naaju, which devolved upon his son Abdul Ghafoor and subsequently upon his sister, Mst. Roshnae, as a limited owner under customary law. The core legal question was whether the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, as amended by the Amendment Act of 1964, terminated Mst. Roshnae’s limited estate, thereby allowing her to inherit the property as a full owner under Shariah and validate her subsequent gift of the property. The Court held that the 1964 Amendment Act rendered the 1962 Act applicable even where the last full owner died prior to its commencement, effectively terminating limited estates and devolving property according to Shariah. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a full sister, as a residuary, ranks higher than the descendants of a true grandfather in the Table of Residuaries, thereby excluding them from inheritance. Consequently, the Court upheld the validity of the gift made by Mst. Roshnae, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's dismissal of the respondents' suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Amendment) Act, 1964 apply retrospectively to cases where the last full owner died before the commencement of the 1962 Act?
  • Does a full sister exclude the descendants of a true grandfather as a residuary in the Table of Residuaries under Sunni Law?
  • Can a female holding a limited estate under customary law validly alienate property after the termination of such estate under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1570 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-05-06
  criminal appealattempted murderbenefit of doubtinterested witnessabscondencemedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for attempted murder and causing hurt. The trial court had convicted the appellant under sections 324 and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, based on the testimony of the injured witness and the complainant. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution's evidence, characterized by contradictions and inconsistencies, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, and whether the trial court erred in relying on the appellant's abscondence without putting it to him during his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The High Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from glaring contradictions, including discrepancies regarding the time of the occurrence, the identity of the person who transported the injured to the hospital, and the medical examination process. The Court emphasized that the presence of injuries on a witness does not automatically render their testimony truthful, and that in cases of enmity, independent corroboration is required. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injuries on a witness automatically validate their testimony as gospel truth?
  • Can an accused be convicted based on evidence of abscondence if that specific incriminating circumstance was not put to the accused during their examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is independent corroboration required for the testimony of an injured witness when there is a history of enmity between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kader through Attorney vs Suleman and others2022 PLD Sindh 527 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs The State2022 MLD 724 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-20
  narcotic substancescharas recoverychemical examiner reportsafe custody of case propertymalkhanaburden of proofcriminal jail appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenged the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 216 kilograms of charas concealed in a secret cavity of a roller loaded on a truck. The core legal questions involved whether the Chemical Examiner's report was rendered inconclusive for failing to mention full test protocols under Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, and whether the prosecution failed to prove safe custody of the case property in the malkhana. The Sindh High Court held that the chemical report substantially met the requirements of Rule 6 and Form-II, and that prompt dispatch of the sample coupled with the failure of the appellant to raise tampering or discharge the shifting burden under Section 29 of the Act of 1997 sustained the conviction. The key principle laid down is that minor technical deviations in a chemical examiner's report do not vitiate a conviction where the report substantially complies with prescribed rules and statutory presumptions remain unrebutted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-mention of full test protocols in a Chemical Examiner's report render it inconclusive and unreliable under Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Does the failure to produce malkhana register entries vitiate the prosecution's case regarding the safe custody of recovered narcotics?
  • When does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in narcotics recovery cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabar vs Mohammad Ismail and 4 others2022 YLR 1632 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-11-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haseeb Sheikh vs The Government of The Punjab through Chief2022 PLC (C.S.) 691 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-29
  compulsory retirementhousing foundation membershipwithdrawal of subscriptionestoppelconstitutional petitionservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a compulsorily retired civil servant seeking the restoration of his membership in the Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation for the allotment of a house, after his major penalty of compulsory retirement was converted into a minor penalty of censure in a service appeal. The core legal question was whether a member who voluntarily withdrew his subscribed amount upon compulsory retirement, furnishing an affidavit terminating his membership, could reclaim or restore his membership upon the subsequent amelioration of his service penalty. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner, having consciously and unconditionally withdrawn his funds and executed an affidavit terminating his membership, was bound by his conduct and precluded by the applicable rules from seeking restoration. The court laid down the principle that voluntary withdrawal of membership deposits coupled with an unequivocal relinquishment of claims creates an estoppel, preventing a party from subsequently reclaiming membership benefits when such acts are sanctioned by mandatory rules prohibiting reinstatement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant who voluntarily withdraws his housing foundation deposit upon compulsory retirement can claim restoration of membership after his penalty is converted to a minor penalty?
  • Does the unconditional withdrawal of subscribed amounts and execution of a termination affidavit preclude a member from subsequently reclaiming housing allotment rights?
  • Is the Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation legally empowered to restore membership once the statutory withdrawal and permanent termination provisions have been acted upon?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq vs Akram-Ul-Haq And Others2022 PLD Lahore 766 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs The State etc2022 LHC 7816 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-01
  narcotics traffickingbenefit of doubtidentification paradeadverse inferenceabscondencecriminal appealacquittalnon-production of witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged trafficking of 12kg of heroin. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding his identity and nexus to the contraband, given the absence of identification proceedings and the non-production of key witnesses. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The court held that the prosecution failed to link the appellant to the vehicle containing the narcotics, and the failure to conduct an identification parade for an accused unknown to the witnesses was fatal. Additionally, the court noted the prosecution's failure to produce essential witnesses, drawing an adverse inference under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The court affirmed that defective arrest warrants and proclamations cannot support a finding of abscondence, and the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused, adhering to the principle that it is better to release a criminal than punish an innocent.

  Questions settled

  • Is an identification parade mandatory when the accused is unknown to the prosecution witnesses?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to produce essential witnesses during a criminal trial?
  • Can defective arrest warrants and proclamations be used to corroborate a claim of abscondence?
  • Does the recovery of personal documents like a CNIC from a vehicle establish a sufficient nexus between the owner of the documents and the contraband found in that vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed, etc vs Addl. District Judge, etc2022 LHC 1508, 2022 [M] CLR 569, 2022 PLJ Lahore 484 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Province of the Punjab and 7 others2022 CLC 1083, PTCL 2022 CL. 867 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Asghar vs Learned Vth Adj, Khi East and another2022 SHC 494 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-04
  constitutional petitionevictionlocus standitrust propertymaintainabilityremand of caserent controllerjurisdictional defect
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts allowing eviction applications filed against the petitioners on grounds of personal need, unauthorized alterations, and subletting. The petitioners challenged these findings, arguing that the respondent lacked locus standi and that the eviction applications were not maintainable because the respondent filed them in his personal capacity rather than on behalf of the actual owner, a charitable trust. The Sindh High Court examined the record and observed that the Rent Controller failed to frame a crucial point for determination regarding the maintainability of the eviction applications despite a specific preliminary objection in the written statements. The Court held that the Rent Controller committed a jurisdictional defect by failing to frame and decide this fundamental question, rendering the concurrent findings unsustainable. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the cases to the Rent Controller to frame a specific point for determination on maintainability, allow the parties to adduce evidence solely on that point, and decide the matter afresh.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller is duty-bound to frame a point for determination regarding the maintainability of an eviction application when a preliminary legal objection is raised in the written statement?
  • Can a person file eviction proceedings in their personal capacity or as an attorney without pleading that they are a trustee or landlord when the premises are owned by a trust?
  • Does the failure of a Rent Controller to frame a fundamental issue regarding locus standi constitute a failure to exercise vested jurisdiction?
  • Can the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 undertake the exercise of framing additional issues and recording additional evidence that ought to have been done by the lower forums?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed alias Kora and others vs State and othersPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1555 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-07
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtchance witnessidentification paradeocular evidencerecoverymurderacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court for murder and attempted robbery. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on a chance witness and a disputed identification parade. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The court found the ocular account unreliable, noting the witness was a chance witness whose presence was not established and whose statement was recorded after an unexplained 26-day delay. Furthermore, the court ruled that the joint identification parade was legally flawed, lacking probative value. The court also highlighted that the failure to associate independent witnesses during the recovery of weapons violated Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution must stand on its own legs and that any reasonable doubt regarding the evidence necessitates acquittal to prevent the conviction of an innocent person.

  Questions settled

  • Does a joint identification parade of multiple suspects possess legal evidentiary value?
  • Is the testimony of a chance witness admissible without independent corroboration of their presence at the crime scene?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in recording the statement of an eye-witness under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during the recovery of incriminating articles violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakeem and others vs Mst. Allah Dini and others2022 CLC 616 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Habib & others vs Mst. Noor Bibi & others2022 SCP 226, 20222 SCMR 1846 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-07-26
  territorial jurisdictioninheritance disputepartition of propertyCode of Civil Procedureimmovable propertycause of actionmultiplicity of litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an inheritance dispute between legal heirs regarding two properties situated in Quetta and Chaman. The core legal questions were whether a civil court possesses territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate a suit involving immovable properties located in different jurisdictions, and whether the transfer of the Chaman property to one respondent was valid. The Supreme Court held that under Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a suit concerning multiple immovable properties situated within the jurisdiction of different courts may be instituted in any court where any portion of the property is located, provided the cause of action is identical. The Court emphasized that this provision aims to prevent multiplicity of litigation and conflicting decisions. On the merits, the Court found the respondents failed to provide evidence of a valid transfer or sale of the Chaman property by the predecessor. Consequently, the Court declared both properties to be part of the estate of the deceased, ordering their partition among all legal heirs, and set aside the High Court's finding regarding the lack of territorial jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit concerning multiple immovable properties situated within the jurisdiction of different courts be instituted in a single court?
  • Does the expression 'any portion of the property' in Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure include multiple properties?
  • Is a transfer of leasehold rights valid without evidence of a donor's offer and a donee's acceptance?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs The State2022 SCMR 2121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-12
  narcoticschain of custodysafe transmissionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealchemical examiner reportadverse presumption
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, Abdul Ghani, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court, a decision subsequently upheld by the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had successfully established the chain of custody and safe transmission of the recovered narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner, thereby proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed a critical gap in the chain of custody, noting that the Head Constable responsible for delivering the samples to the Chemical Examiner was never produced as a witness. Citing established precedents, the Court held that the failure to produce the official responsible for the transmission of samples created a fatal defect in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt, emphasizing that safe transmission of samples is essential to proving a narcotics offense.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce the official responsible for delivering narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner create a fatal defect in the prosecution's case?
  • Can an adverse presumption be drawn under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, when a material witness is not produced by the prosecution?
  • Is the safe transmission of narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner a mandatory requirement for proving a case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs The State through P.G. Balochistan and another2022 SCMR 544, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-03
  rapechild witnessforensic evidencesentence enhancementjuvenile offendercriminal appealDNA evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, convicted by a Juvenile Court for the rape of a nine-year-old girl under Section 376(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, challenged the High Court's decision to enhance his sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the testimony of child witnesses in the absence of positive forensic evidence and the appropriateness of the High Court's enhancement of the sentence for a juvenile offender. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prompt reporting of the crime by the victim and her sister, coupled with the clinical confirmation of the assault, provided overwhelming evidence that rendered forensic corroboration unnecessary. The Court clarified that negative DNA or forensic reports do not automatically invalidate a prosecution case, particularly given potential issues with sample handling and storage in remote areas. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the enhancement of the sentence was justified given the gravity of the offense, regardless of the appellant's juvenile status, as the initial assault was established beyond doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a negative forensic or DNA report automatically invalidate a prosecution case for rape?
  • Can the testimony of child witnesses be relied upon without forensic corroboration in rape cases?
  • Is the enhancement of a sentence by the High Court justified for a juvenile offender convicted of a grave offense?
  • Does the failure to obtain a positive DNA profile negate the occurrence of a carnal assault?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani Khetran and another vs Government Of Balochistan through Secretary Irrigation Department and another2022 CLC 781 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State2022 SCP 164, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 224, 2022 SCMR 1527 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-30
  Criminal appealMurderInjuryFirst Information Report (FIR)Delay in FIRBenefit of doubtAcquittalWitness credibilityInconsistent testimonyPenal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the appellant's conviction under Section 302(b) and Section 337-F(ii) PPC for murder and causing injury, respectively, where the High Court had altered the death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal question revolved around the impact of an 11-day delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and inconsistencies in prosecution witness testimonies regarding the role of a co-accused. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is a serious lapse, which can be attributed to consultation and calculated preparation of the report. Furthermore, inconsistencies and somersaults by prosecution witnesses regarding accusations cast serious doubt on their credibility. The Court reiterated that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the accused's guilt, the benefit of doubt must be extended as a matter of right, not grace, and conviction requires unimpeachable, trustworthy, and reliable evidence.

  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and others vs Muhammad Murad and others2022 CLC 1713 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and another vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 942 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-28
  criminal appealremand of caseadditional evidencemedico-legal certificatemedical boardhurtta'zir
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing injuries to the complainant and a witness. The core legal question revolves around the propriety of convicting the accused without the examination of the primary Medical Officer who issued the medico-legal certificates, whose absence was excused due to alleged illness supported by an unverified medical certificate, and the failure to bring the Medical Board's opinion on record regarding challenged injuries. The High Court held that examining the author of the medico-legal certificates and the Medical Board members is essential for a just decision and to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for recording the necessary medical evidence and fresh adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Is it obligatory for the court to summon and examine a material witness like the Medical Officer who issued the medico-legal certificates for a just decision of the case?
  • Can a criminal case be remanded to the trial court for recording additional medical evidence when the primary Medical Officer was not examined due to alleged illness?
  • Whether the failure to produce the opinion of the Medical Board constituted to evaluate challenged medical certificates warrants a re-trial or rehearing of the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar, etc vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 354 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-30
  pre-arrest bailtheft by servantprohibitory clauseunexplained delay in FIRmala fidecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in a case registered under Section 381 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of theft committed by servants. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of approximately six months, and the FIR lacked specific details regarding the date, time, or location of the alleged theft. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to clarify the specific items stolen or the specific roles of the petitioners. The Court noted that the underlying dispute appeared to be a matter of rendition of accounts and that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that mala fide could be inferred from the circumstances and that there was no misuse of ad-interim bail, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing the lack of specificity in the accusations.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay of six months in lodging an FIR without explanation constitute a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an offence under Section 381 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 covered by the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can mala fide be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a case where specific evidence is lacking?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Muhammad Aalam and 3 others2022 YLR 1464 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Hafiz Atta Ur Rehman and another2022 YLR 2174 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Faizi Bibi (Widow) and others2022 PLJ Quetta 162 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Kudezai and 2 others vs Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and 2 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 1369 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-05-31
  benevolent fundretired civil servantjurisdiction of High CourtService Tribunalterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 by retired education department officers seeking the issuance of lump sum benevolent fund based on their promoted/time-scale grades rather than their original pay scales, given that 4% deductions were made from their salaries on the higher scale. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether a retired employee, for the purpose of terms and conditions of service and pensionary benefits, is considered a civil servant and whether the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred by Article 212 of the Constitution in favor of the Service Tribunal. The Balochistan High Court held that retired civil servants fall within the definition of civil servants under the relevant statutes and Article 212 of the Constitution regarding their terms and conditions of service. Consequently, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such matters, and the petition was dismissed as non-maintainable, leaving the petitioners at liberty to approach the appropriate Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retired employee for the purpose of his terms and conditions of service and pensionary benefits is considered as a civil servant?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution bar the jurisdiction of High Courts in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of retired civil servants?
  • Can a retired civil servant agitate claims regarding pensionary benefits and benevolent funds before the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Farooq and another vs Mst. Maryam Farooq and others2022 PLD Islamabad 120 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-15
  interim custodyhabeas corpuswelfare of the minorSection 491 Cr.P.C.Guardians and Wards Actprimary caregivermatrimonial disputehizanat
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which granted interim custody of minor children to their mothers. The petitioners, fathers of the minors, contended that the mothers had abandoned the matrimonial home and that the remedy under Section 491 was inappropriate given the ongoing matrimonial disputes. The Court held that jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is not mutually exclusive with the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. While the Guardian Court remains the final arbiter for permanent custody, the High Court or Sessions Court may exercise Section 491 powers to grant interim custody to ensure the welfare of the child, which is the paramount consideration. The Court observed that the 'primary caregiver' status and the need to keep siblings together are vital factors. It found that the children had been tutored against their mothers, which was detrimental to their welfare. Consequently, the Court upheld the interim custody order, directing the Guardian Court to decide the permanent custody matter expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 bar the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the interim custody of a minor?
  • Is the welfare of the child the paramount consideration in a habeas corpus petition concerning the custody of a minor?
  • Can a court under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 determine the permanent custody of a minor?
  • Does the 'tender years doctrine' remain the sole consideration for determining the interim custody of a minor?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Dawood alias Dawood vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 613 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-21
  murdercapital punishmentmitigating circumstancesocular accountmedical evidenceunproven motiveimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Sections 302(b), 324, and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in death sentences on two counts and other prison terms. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, medical evidence, unproven motive, and a negative forensic report in determining capital punishment. The Lahore High Court held that while the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent ocular testimony of injured and eyewitnesses corroborated by medical evidence, the failure to prove the alleged motive and the inconsequential firearm recovery served as mitigating circumstances. The court laid down the principle that the absence or unproven status of a motive, coupled with an unverified weapon recovery, constitutes an extenuating circumstance warranting the conversion of a death sentence into imprisonment for life, while maintaining the underlying convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a death sentence be converted to imprisonment for life when the prosecution motive remains unproven?
  • Whether unverified or negative forensic recovery of a weapon acts as an extenuating circumstance in a murder trial?
  • Is the testimony of an injured eyewitness sufficient to maintain a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without corroborative weapon recovery?
  • Does a delay in reporting a crime to the police vitiate the prosecution case when priority was given to medical treatment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari vs Akhtar Rasheed, Station House Officer, Police Station Airport, Quetta and 5 others2022 MLD 805 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Baqi, etc vs Haji Khan Muhammad, etc2022 SCP 176, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 546 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-20
  contempt of courtcivil contemptdiscretionary ordersleave to appealstatus quoSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court of Balochistan dismissing the petitioners' contempt application, which alleged violation of an interim status quo order concerning a disputed road. The core legal question is whether the Supreme Court should interfere with a discretionary order of the High Court declining to initiate contempt proceedings, and under what circumstances such an order may be challenged. The Supreme Court held that while the matter of contempt is essentially between the court and the alleged contemnor and appellate courts generally exercise self-restraint in interfering with discretionary refusals to initiate contempt proceedings, such orders are not immune from scrutiny if they are found to be arbitrary, perverse, or against settled principles of law. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution to interfere with a High Court's refusal to initiate civil contempt proceedings only where the impugned finding is arbitrary, perverse, ridiculous, improbable, or results in a grave miscarriage of justice. Finding the High Court's reasoning sound—specifically that evaluating contested evidence in contempt proceedings might prejudice the pending main appeal—the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with a High Court's discretionary order declining to initiate contempt proceedings?
  • Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an order refusing to initiate proceedings for civil contempt?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal circumscribed by any constitutional limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Mst. Zaib-un-Nissa & others2022 SCP 88, 2022 PSC 1492, 2022 PLJ SC 265, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-10
  pardanashin ladyburden of proofgift deedilliterate womanfraud and misrepresentationconcurrent findingscivil petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision and upholding concurrent findings of the lower courts in favor of the respondents' suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and possession. The core legal question centered on whether a gift deed executed by illiterate and Pardanashin women in favour of their brother was valid, voluntary, and proved in accordance with law, and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings regarding the invalidity of the gift were unexceptionable, emphasizing that the burden of proof heavily rests upon the beneficiary to affirmatively establish that a transaction involving an illiterate or Pardanashin lady was executed with full understanding, free consent, and independent advice, which the petitioner failed to do. The key principle laid down is that transactions involving the divestment of property by illiterate or Pardanashin women require stringent proof and fulfillment of mandatory safeguards to protect them from fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence.

  Questions settled

  • Who bears the burden of proof to establish the validity of a gift deed executed by an illiterate or Pardanashin lady?
  • Are the rules regarding transactions by Pardanashin ladies applicable to illiterate and ignorant women who do not strictly observe purdah?
  • What mandatory conditions must be fulfilled to validate a property transaction involving an illiterate or Pardanashin lady?
  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts on a question of fact regarding a gift transaction can be interfered with under revisional or appellate jurisdiction without showing perversity or legal defect?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Qureshi vs Mst. Rasheeda Begum & others2022 SHC 222 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-23Read full judgment →