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.

• Abdu Ahad Shaikh & 36 others vs Province of SIndh & Others2022 SHC 180 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-10
  regularization of servicecontractual employmentlegitimate expectationconstitutional petitionad-hoc appointmentcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, contract employees of the Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Housing Cell (SBBHC), approached the High Court of Sindh seeking regularization of their services. They argued that a Provincial Cabinet decision and policies of other provincial governments created a legitimate expectation of regularization, and that their long service and the conversion of SBBHC into an attached department of the Sindh Local Government justified permanent absorption. The respondents contended that the petitioners were appointed on a contract basis without a competitive process, and that their contracts had expired. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that mere length of service on an ad-hoc or contract basis does not automatically confer a right to regularization. The Court laid down the principle that regularization is not an automatically accruing right and must be supported by statutory legislation or a specific policy decision, subject to the availability of posts, budgetary provisions, and fulfillment of recruitment criteria. In the absence of a statutory basis, extraordinary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does long service on a contractual or ad-hoc basis automatically entitle an employee to regularization of service?
  • Can a contractual employee claim regularization under Article 199 of the Constitution in the absence of a statutory basis or policy decision?
  • Is a Provincial Cabinet's policy decision on regularization binding if the employee's appointment does not fall within the criteria or statutory timelines of the relevant regularization act?
  Read full judgment →
• Abd-us-Samad vs The State, Hameed Gul2022 PHC 662 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-26Read full judgment →
• Abbas Raza vs Province of Sindh & others2022 SHC 412 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-16Read full judgment →
• Abbas Khan vs The State & another2022 IHC 154 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-16
  post-arrest bailrobberyidentification paradehabitual offenderprohibitory clausecriminal-precedents
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in FIR No. 655 dated 20.07.2021 registered under sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Koral, Islamabad, relating to an armed street robbery. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering his identification in an identification parade, recovery of snatched property, and involvement in multiple similar criminal cases. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, as sufficient tangible incriminating material prima facie connected him to the heinous offence, which fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and his status as a habitual offender engaged in rampant street crimes disentitled him to discretionary relief. The key principle laid down is that involvement in multiple similar offences and being a habitual offender, coupled with positive identification and recovery, constitutes strong grounds to refuse post-arrest bail in heinous crimes affecting society.

  Questions settled

  • Whether identification in an identification parade and recovery of snatched property disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Does involvement in multiple similar criminal cases classify an accused as a habitual offender for the refusal of bail?
  • Does the offence of robbery under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas Haider Naqvi and another vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 PCRLJ 941 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-08
  quashing of referenceaccountability courtdouble jeopardyregulated activityconstitutional petitionfag end of trialjurisdiction of NABregulatory penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by employees of Shell Pakistan Ltd. seeking the quashment of a reference pending before an Accountability Court, following the dismissal of their acquittal application under Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners argued that the National Accountability Bureau lacked jurisdiction, that the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002 provided a complete code with overriding effect, and that the continuation of proceedings violated the principle of double jeopardy due to a prior penalty imposed on the company. The Sindh High Court held that since the trial was at its fag end with only the cross-examination of the last witness remaining, it would be premature and prejudicial to interfere under constitutional jurisdiction. The court further held that a regulatory penalty imposed on a corporate entity via a show-cause notice does not constitute a previous conviction or acquittal by a competent court so as to attract the bar against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution or Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition was accordingly dismissed on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether High Court can interfere under constitutional jurisdiction to quash a reference when the trial is at its fag end?
  • Does the imposition of a regulatory penalty on a company by OGRA attract the principle of double jeopardy regarding criminal proceedings against its employees under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Whether proceedings before an Accountability Court can be held to be coram non judice merely because the alleged acts pertain to a regulated petroleum sector?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas and others vs The State2022 SHC 232, 2024 PTD 232 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-23
  compromisecompounding of offencesacquittalQisas and Diyatminor legal heirscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal appeal against the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under various provisions including sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties filed miscellaneous applications seeking permission to compound the offences and for the acquittal of the appellants based on a compromise. The core legal question was whether the parties could be permitted to compound the offences under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the appellants acquitted, given that the legal heirs of the deceased had pardoned the accused and waived their rights of Qisas and Diyat, subject to protecting the shares of minor legal heirs. The Sindh High Court held that since the offences were compoundable and the legal heirs had voluntarily pardoned the appellants, the compromise should be accepted. The Court laid down the principle that permission to compound offences under section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 may be granted and the accused acquitted pursuant to section 345(6), provided that the financial shares of minor legal heirs regarding Diyat are duly secured and deposited.

  Questions settled

  • Can an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be compounded on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
  • Whether the court can permit the compounding of offences under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when minor legal heirs are involved?
  • What procedure must be followed to safeguard the Diyat shares of minor legal heirs upon the compromise of a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abb Power Automation (Private) Limited and others vs Joint Registrar of Companies and others2022 CLD 925 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-13Read full judgment →
• Abb Power and Automation (Private) Limited and others vs Joint Registrar2022 PCTLR 1109 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-13Read full judgment →
• Abad-Ul-Haq vs Secretary Elementary And Secondary Education, Muzaffarabad and others2022 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 10 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  relaxation of upper age limitcivil servantstemporary service deductionprimary teacher appointmentautomatic age exclusionwrit petitionmerit list
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave arose out of a High Court judgment dismissing the appellant's writ petition challenging the appointment of Respondent No. 5 as a Primary Teacher. The appellant, ranked first on the waiting merit list, contended that Respondent No. 5 was overage at the time of application (44 years old against the advertised limit of 40 years) and had failed to obtain prior government relaxation of the upper age limit as required under Rule 6 of the AJ&K Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1997. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the appeal, holding that Respondent No. 5's case was governed by Rule 4(v) rather than Rule 6 of the 1997 Rules. The Court laid down that Rule 4(v) operates automatically by operation of law, mandating the exclusion of continuous temporary government service from a candidate's age without requiring prior approval or application for relaxation under Rule 6, which applies solely to rare cases involving factors beyond human control.

  Questions settled

  • Does Rule 4(v) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of age limit) Rules 1997 operate automatically to exclude previous continuous government service from a candidate's age without prior formal approval?
  • Is a candidate seeking benefit of continuous government service under Rule 4(v) required to apply for age relaxation under Rule 6 of the AJ&K Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of age limit) Rules 1997 prior to submitting a job application?
  • What is the distinction in application between Rule 4 and Rule 6 of the AJ&K Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of age limit) Rules 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Aasim Majeed Meer vs Federation of Pakistan and another2022 IHC 148 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-22
  deputationrepatriationvested rightcivil serviceexigencies of servicewrit jurisdictionaggrieved person
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an office order issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs repatriating the petitioner, a deputationist, to his parent department, the Intelligence Bureau. The core legal question was whether a civil servant on deputation possesses a vested right to complete the full tenure of their deputation or to challenge their repatriation to the parent department. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a deputationist has no vested right to remain in a borrowing department for any stipulated period. The court affirmed that the competent authority retains the discretion to repatriate a deputationist at any time, based on the exigencies of service, without being required to assign reasons. Furthermore, the court clarified that a deputationist cannot be considered an 'aggrieved person' regarding such repatriation, as it does not inherently stigmatize the individual or constitute disciplinary action, provided no formal proceedings under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, have been initiated. Consequently, the court found no legal infirmity in the repatriation order.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant on deputation have a vested right to complete the full tenure of their deputation in the borrowing department?
  • Can a competent authority repatriate a deputationist to their parent department without assigning any reason?
  • Is a civil servant on deputation considered an 'aggrieved person' entitled to invoke constitutional jurisdiction against an order of repatriation?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Ullah vs Ghazi Gul and another2022 P Cr. L J 332 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-10-11
  revision petitionremand orderde-novo trialalteration of chargeexcess of jurisdictioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the legality of an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge directing a de-novo trial and altering the charge after the case had been previously remanded by the appellate court solely for the rewriting of the judgment under section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a trial court, upon receiving a case remanded for a specific limited purpose, can exceed its mandate by reopening the trial, altering the charge, and ordering a de-novo trial without valid legal justification. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction, flouted the remand order, and committed material illegalities by initiating a de-novo trial and altering charges without any prejudice shown to the accused. The court laid down the principle that a trial court must strictly adhere to the terms of a remand order and cannot expand its scope or conduct a de-novo trial absent proper legal grounds or demonstrable prejudice to the defense.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can order a de-novo trial and alter charges when a case is specifically remanded by an appellate court for the sole purpose of rewriting a judgment?
  • Does an omission or defect in a charge that does not mislead or prejudice the accused vitiate the trial?
  • Can a trial court proceed with a murder trial against an under-trial prisoner in the absence of defense counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Hussain vs The Accountability Court-IV and Others2022 SHC 520 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
• Aamir Farooq vs Naima Farooq2022 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 17 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-10-26Read full judgment →
• Aamir Abbas vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 818 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-19
  murder referencebenefit of doubtchance witnesscriminal appealacquittaleyewitness credibilityappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court against the appellant, Aamir Abbas, for the murder of Khawar Abbas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony and the circumstances of the incident. The Lahore High Court found that the prosecution's timeline was improbable, noting that the incident occurred in dark hours despite the stated time of 6:45 p.m., and that the eyewitnesses' ability to attribute specific injuries to individual accused in a panic situation was unbelievable. Furthermore, the court identified the eyewitnesses as chance witnesses who failed to establish their presence, found the recovery of the weapon from an accessible public place unreliable, and deemed the alleged motive of civil litigation insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the Murder Reference in the negative, holding that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a motive for murder automatically prove the guilt of an accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt?
  • Can eyewitness testimony be considered reliable when it provides a precise, photographic narration of events during a panic situation in the dark?
  • Is a recovery of a weapon from an open, accessible place sufficient to corroborate prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• A.M. Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd vs Province of Punjab through Secretary Communication & Works Department etc2022 PLJ Lahore 403 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• A.M. Construction Company (Private) Limited vs Taisei Corporation, etc2022 LHC 3489, 2025 CLD 474 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-06Read full judgment →
• A.M Qureshi vs Deputy Commissioner, Province of Sindh, Karachi2022 SHC 538 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• A. Razzaq Dawood and others vs Messrs Urban Properties Builders and others2022 CLC 209 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-05Read full judgment →
• 1. Abdul Wahab s/o Qalam khan 2. Muhammad Farooq s/o Abdul Rehman2022 PHC 35 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-09Read full judgment →
• Zunaira Rehman W/o Ali Rehman vs The Election Commission of Pakistan2021 SHC 736 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-05Read full judgment →
• Zulqernain Khurram and another vs Punjab Healthcare Commission and 42021 LHC 5263, 2022 CLC 61, 2022 PLJ Lahore 29 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-31Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar vs Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice Of Peace, Lahore2021 P Cr. L J 1779 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-26
  Ex-Officio Justice of the Peaceregistration of FIRpolice non-compliancequasi-judicial functionscognizable offencewrit jurisdictionpolice accountability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which directed the Capital City Police Officer (CCPO) to ensure compliance with a previous order regarding the registration of an FIR and to initiate proceedings against a delinquent Station House Officer (SHO) for non-compliance. The core legal question concerned the nature of the functions performed by an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace and the legal consequences for police officers failing to obey their directions. The Court held that the functions of an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace are quasi-judicial, involving the application of mind and exercise of discretion, rather than merely administrative or ministerial. Consequently, police officers are legally obligated to execute these orders promptly. The Court affirmed that disobedience to such lawful directions constitutes an offence under the Police Order, 2002, and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and that the Justice of the Peace possesses the authority to direct higher police officials to ensure compliance or initiate penal action against defaulting officers.

  Questions settled

  • Are the functions performed by an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 administrative or quasi-judicial in nature?
  • Does a police officer's failure to comply with a direction issued by an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace constitute a punishable offence?
  • Can an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace direct higher police authorities to initiate penal action against a subordinate officer for non-compliance with a court order?
  • Does the term 'prosecution' under Article 155 of the Police Order 2002 include the mere registration of an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar son of Abdul Ghaffar vs The State etc.2021 PHC 384 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-02
  murderdying declarationcapital sentencemitigation of sentencecriminal appealacquittaldomestic disputeocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences of two appellants, Zulfiqar and Abdul Ghaffar, for the murder of Mst. Nighat. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the dying declaration, the sufficiency of ocular evidence, and the appropriate quantum of sentence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the husband, Abdul Ghaffar, through a dying declaration, ocular testimony of minor children, and medical evidence, particularly noting his unexplained abscondence and failure to explain his wife's death in their shared room. However, the court acquitted the co-accused, Zulfiqar, finding insufficient evidence of his participation, given his separate residence and the circumstances of his arrest. Regarding the sentence, the court held that while the husband's conviction was maintained, the death penalty was excessive given the sudden flare-up of a domestic dispute and the welfare of the surviving children. Consequently, the court reduced the husband's sentence to life imprisonment and acquitted the co-accused, establishing that domestic circumstances and the nature of the provocation are valid grounds for mitigating capital punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying declaration recorded in the form of a Murasila is admissible when the deceased was conscious at the time of reporting?
  • Does the unexplained abscondence of a husband following the murder of his wife in their shared room constitute a strong incriminating circumstance?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment if the murder resulted from a sudden flare-up during a domestic dispute?
  • Is the acquittal of a co-accused justified when evidence shows they resided separately and were not present at the scene of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 533 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-16
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidenceweapon recoverymotiveacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved the charge against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of the ocular testimony, medical evidence, weapon recovery, and motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the claimed eye-witnesses at the scene, noting unexplained delays in the post-mortem examination, suspicious circumstances surrounding the dispatch of crime empties to the forensic agency, and an unproven motive. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant on the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is inconsistent, chance witnesses fail to prove their presence, and investigative delays suggest fabrication, the conviction cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses who fail to establish their presence at the venue of occurrence can form the basis of a murder conviction?
  • Does an unexplained delay in conducting a post-mortem examination point towards the possibility of procuring and planting eye-witnesses?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon of offence rendered legally unacceptable if the crime empty is dispatched to the forensic science agency after the arrest of the accused?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained when the prosecution motive remains unproved and shrouded in mystery?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 357 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-28
  post-arrest baildishonour of chequenon-prohibitory clausecriminal procedurepolice investigationbail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was accused in an FIR registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonour of a cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the offence and the findings of the police investigation. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the prosecution's case relied on documentary evidence already in its possession, eliminating the risk of tampering. Furthermore, the police investigation revealed significant discrepancies in the complainant's version, suggesting the cheque amount had been altered and that no financial transaction occurred between the petitioner and the complainant. The Court emphasized that the offence under Section 489-F does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court reaffirmed the principle that in non-prohibitory offences, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception, requiring favourable consideration unless exceptional circumstances exist.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should bail be granted when the prosecution's case relies solely on documentary evidence already in its possession?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception in cases falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs SSP Complaint Cell Dadu & Others2021 SHC 900 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Factory Manager/Industrial Relations Manager, Packages Ltd.2021 LHC 7030 · Lahore High Court
  constitutional petitiondismissal from servicedomestic inquirymisconductfair trialbias of inquiry officerboycott of inquiryconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the concurrent judgments of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's grievance petition against his dismissal from service for misconduct. The petitioner, a store clerk appointed in 1977 and dismissed in 1984, was reinstated pursuant to a High Court order directing a fresh inquiry by an independent officer. The fresh inquiry found him guilty of misconduct involving insubordination and threatening a superior, leading to his subsequent dismissal in 2004. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to produce defense evidence, whether the inquiry officer was biased, and whether the alleged acts constituted misconduct. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner himself boycotted the inquiry proceedings after failing to produce evidence despite multiple opportunities, that mere allegations of bias without solid foundation are insufficient, and that the proven acts constituted misconduct under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming concurrent findings of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee can claim denial of a fair opportunity to defend when he voluntarily boycotts domestic inquiry proceedings?
  • Does the recording of statements of management witnesses prior to the examination of the accused vitiate a domestic inquiry?
  • Whether mere allegations of bias against an inquiry officer are sufficient to invalidate inquiry proceedings without objective proof?
  • Does an employee's act of throwing a leave application and threatening a superior officer constitute misconduct under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by labor forums in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Asj etc2021 PLJ Lahore 951, 2021 LHC 1300 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-26Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar @ Zulfa vs The State2021 P S c (Crl.) 201, 2021 SCMR 531, 2021 SCP 26, PLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-16
  narcotic substancespoastpoppy strawpolice witnessquantum of sentencecriminal appealmitigating circumstance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed upon the petitioner under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 15 kilograms of 'bhukki/poast'. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency of evidence regarding the nature of the recovered substance and the appropriate quantum of punishment. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, affirming that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony remains reliable if unshattered during cross-examination. However, regarding the sentence, the Court examined the definition of 'poast' under Section 2(t) of the CNSA, noting that while 'poast' or 'doda' refers specifically to the capsule or pouch of the poppy plant, the prosecution failed to clarify whether the recovered material consisted solely of these capsules or included other plant parts. Given this ambiguity and the petitioner's long incarceration, the Court held that the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone. The judgment clarifies that while all 'poast' is poppy straw, not all poppy straw is necessarily 'poast'.

  Questions settled

  • Are police officials considered competent witnesses in narcotics cases?
  • What is the legal definition of 'poast' or 'doda' under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the recovery of poppy straw necessarily constitute the recovery of 'poast' under the CNSA, 1997?
  • Can the sentence of life imprisonment be reduced based on the ambiguity of the nature of the recovered narcotic substance?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair Khan vs The StatePLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 171, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 570, 2021 SCMR 492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-21
  narcoticscannabissafe custodychain of custodyforensic reportchemical examinercriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for the transportation of 80 kilograms of cannabis concealed in a truck. The petitioner, who was driving the vehicle at the time of interception, was sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court, a decision subsequently upheld by the High Court of Sindh. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and the narcotic character of the seized substance. Upon review, the Court found that the prosecution failed to produce the official responsible for delivering the samples to the Chemical Examiner, thereby breaking the essential link of safe transmission. Furthermore, the prosecution relied on a duplicate forensic report, which the Court deemed inadmissible in evidence. Holding that the failure to establish safe custody and the reliance on inadmissible forensic documentation vitiated the charge, the Court set aside the conviction. The Court emphasized that in narcotics cases, the prosecution must prove the safe custody and transmission of samples beyond reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction.

  Read full judgment →
• Zubair Ali vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2021 SCP 232, 2021 SCMR 1319, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-05-25
  Senate electionTechnocrat seatnomination paperseducational qualificationprofessional experiencedisqualification
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose from the rejection of the petitioner's nomination papers for a Technocrat seat in the Senate of Pakistan. The Returning Officer, the Election Tribunal, and the High Court had all maintained the rejection on the grounds that the petitioner did not meet the statutory criteria of a 'technocrat' under Section 2(xxxix) of the Election Act 2017. The petitioner, who obtained a sixteen-year equivalent Master's degree in 2010, claimed twenty years of professional experience dating back to 1997 when he was fourteen years old and working in his family's local hotel business. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the twenty years of practical experience required to qualify as a technocrat must be counted only after acquiring the prescribed sixteen-year educational qualification. The Court emphasized that a technocrat must possess a high level of expertise, a record of national or international achievement, and a position of eminence in a specialized field, which cannot be satisfied by merely participating in a local family business prior to completing one's education.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the twenty years of professional experience required to qualify as a technocrat under the Election Act 2017 must be acquired after obtaining the prescribed sixteen-year educational qualification?
  • Can participation in a local family business prior to completing a degree satisfy the requirement of professional experience and national or international achievement for a technocrat seat?
  • Does the higher eligibility criteria of education and experience required for a technocrat seat violate the minimum age qualification of twenty-five years provided under Article 62(1)(b) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair Ali Mirani vs Zameer Hussain Detho and Others2021 SHC 1152 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-01
  criminal acquittal appealmurderdelay in lodging FIRnatural deathmedical board opiniondouble presumption of innocenceinterference in acquittaldismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 01.11.2021 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Larkana, whereby the private respondents were acquitted of murder charges. The prosecution alleged that the respondents pushed the deceased to the ground and kicked him to death while holding the appellant at gunpoint. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal order suffered from misappraisal of evidence or warranted appellate interference under the narrow scope governing appeals against acquittal. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, affirming the trial court's decision. It held that an unexplained delay of over one month in lodging the FIR could not be overlooked, and that the unanimous opinion of the medical board established that the deceased died of natural causes, which cannot constitute an offence. The court reiterated that appellate interference in an acquittal is exceedingly narrow and impermissible unless the findings are arbitrary, perverse, or cause a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of more than one month in lodging an FIR undermines the prosecution case in a criminal trial?
  • Can murder charges be sustained when the unanimous opinion of a medical board confirms that the deceased died a natural death?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair Ahmad vs Government Of Punjab and others2021 PLJ Lahore 614 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Begum vs Government of Sindh & others2021 SHC 288 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
• ZTBL vs Sami Ullah2021 PHC 392, 2022 CLD 238 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-08Read full judgment →
• Zohra Jabeen vs First Woman Bank and others2021 IHC 262, 2022 [M] CLR 762, 2022 PCTLR 604, 2022 PLC 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-27
  misconductindustrial relationswrongful dismissalhabitual negligencewrit jurisdictionappellate reasoningremandstanding orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges an order passed by the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which reversed a decision reinstating the petitioner, a bank employee, following her dismissal for alleged misconduct. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioner's erroneous deposit of funds and unauthorized absence constituted "misconduct" under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and whether the appellate tribunal provided sufficient reasoning for its reversal. The High Court held that the NIRC Full Bench failed to determine whether the petitioner's actions legally qualified as "misconduct" under the relevant Standing Orders and failed to provide explicit reasons for overturning the original findings of fact. The Court emphasized that a single instance of negligence does not satisfy the statutory requirement of "habitual negligence," and that appellate bodies must provide reasoned decisions when reversing lower tribunal findings. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the NIRC Full Bench for a fresh, reasoned decision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single instance of negligence constitute 'habitual negligence' under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Is an appellate tribunal required to provide explicit reasons when reversing findings of fact made by a lower tribunal?
  • Can an employee be dismissed for misconduct without the employer proving that the alleged act falls within the statutory definitions of misconduct?
  • Does the High Court have the power to substitute its own decision for that of a tribunal in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Zohaib vs The State2021 YLR 851 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-14
  Anti-Terrorism Actbenefit of doubtcriminal appealjurisdiction of special courtsmurderreasonable doubtterrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant by the Anti-Terrorism Court for murder and related offenses. The core legal questions concerned whether the incident constituted an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and whether the trial court possessed proper jurisdiction given the procedural irregularities in the case's transfer. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of terrorism, as the incident lacked the requisite public fear or sense of insecurity. Furthermore, the court found the prosecution’s case riddled with infirmities, including the absence of forensic evidence linking the appellant to the crime, lack of established motive, and significant discrepancies in police documentation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the Anti-Terrorism Act requires strict construction, where the element of public terror is a sine qua non. Additionally, it reiterates that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an act of murder committed in private, without creating public fear or insecurity, qualify as an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can an ordinary court of session directly transfer a case to a Special Anti-Terrorism Court without adhering to the procedural requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Zohaib Arif Farooqui vs The State2021 SHC 68 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequesfurther inquirymalafideprohibitory clausedelayed FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal case registered against the applicant, Zohaib Arif Farooqui, for allegedly issuing dishonoured cheques to the complainant, Muhammad Salman. After being denied pre-arrest bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the applicant approached the Sindh High Court through an application under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail on grounds of malafide, delayed FIR, and the offence falling outside the prohibitory clause. The High Court held that the delay in lodging the FIR, the existence of a business or account settlement dispute, and the fact that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warranted the confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where an FIR is delayed without plausible explanation and a monetary dispute over account settlement exists alongside an offence outside the prohibitory clause, a case for further inquiry and pre-arrest bail is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when an FIR is lodged with an unexplained delay?
  • Does an offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether a dispute over the settlement of accounts between parties forms a valid ground for further inquiry in bail matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Zil-e-Huma Farooq vs Government of Pakistan, etc2021 IHC 226 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-29Read full judgment →
• Ziauddin vs Khan Muhammad and 7 others2021 PLD Balochistan 67 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-17Read full judgment →
• Zia-Ud-Din vs Mir Mohammad Khan and 5 others2021 MLD 1319 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-03-13
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailmurdertentative assessmentocular accountcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the complainant seeking cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the Vacations Sessions Judge Gilgit in a murder case involving the alleged killing of the deceased over a motive of illicit relations. The core legal question was whether the Sessions Court was justified in granting post-arrest bail to the directly charged accused on the grounds of delay in recording witness statements and absence of the dead body at the time of arrest. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the Sessions Court had granted bail on flimsy grounds in a hasty manner, as tentative assessment revealed prima facie connection of the accused with the offence, supported by eyewitness accounts, disclosed motive, and recoveries of weapons. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the bail order was recalled, establishing the principle that tentative assessment of incriminating material at the bail stage does not warrant sifting of evidence and that direct nomination coupled with supporting recovery and ocular evidence precludes the grant of bail in heinous offences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be cancelled when the accused are directly nominated in the FIR with specific roles and incriminating recoveries are made?
  • Is a delay of three days in recording statements of eye-witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sufficient ground for granting bail in a murder case?
  • To what extent can tentative assessment of evidence be carried out by the court at the post-arrest bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia Ullah vs The State2021 YLR 2273 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-27
  narcotics traffickingexclusive possessionconscious knowledgeshift of burden of proofchassis tamperingcriminal appealacquittalheroin recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, following the recovery of a large quantity of heroin from a secret cavity of an oil tanker. The core legal questions involve the assessment of exclusive possession and conscious knowledge of narcotics in a vehicle occupied by multiple persons, and the proof required for tampering with vehicle identification under the Pakistan Penal Code. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the exclusive possession and control of the driver (appellant Zia Ullah) over the contraband, shifting the burden under section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which he failed to discharge, while acquitting the passenger (appellant Saddam Hussain) due to lack of proof of conscious knowledge. The court further held that convictions under sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code were unsustainable without evidence linking the appellants to the vehicle's chassis tampering. The key principles laid down include the standard of proof for passenger liability in narcotics transport cases and the requirement of direct evidence connecting an accused to document or chassis forgery.

  Questions settled

  • Does a passenger sitting in a vehicle carrying concealed narcotics share criminal liability without proof of conscious knowledge?
  • How does the statutory shift of burden of proof operate under section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can an accused be convicted for tampering with a vehicle's chassis number in the absence of direct investigative evidence linking them to the forgery?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia Ullah son of Momin Khan, r/o Banda Nabi, Pabbi District Nowshera vs2021 PHC 22 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
• Zia Ullah Khan & 5 others vs Govt: of Pakistan through secretary Interior &2021 PHC 326, 2022 PLD Peshawar 122 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-29Read full judgment →
• Zia Ullah and others vs State and othersPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 282 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-28
  murderdeath sentencechance witnessbenefit of doubtocular accountcriminal appealfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the credibility of ocular accounts, the impact of unexplained delay in FIR registration, and the reliability of evidence previously rejected regarding an acquitted co-accused. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. It found the eye-witnesses to be "chance witnesses" whose presence was doubtful and whose testimony was shaky. Furthermore, the Court applied the principle that if eye-witnesses are disbelieved regarding an acquitted co-accused, their testimony cannot be relied upon against the remaining accused without independent corroboration. Additionally, the unexplained four-hour delay in FIR registration and the failure to substantiate the alleged motive further weakened the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative, emphasizing that the prosecution must stand on its own legs and cannot rely on defense weaknesses.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of eye-witnesses be relied upon if they are found to be chance witnesses without a plausible explanation for their presence?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR undermine the veracity of the prosecution's case?
  • Can evidence that has been disbelieved regarding an acquitted co-accused be relied upon to convict another accused without independent corroboration?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case independently without relying on the weaknesses of the defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia Ullah and another vs The State2021 SCMR 1507, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-19
  criminal appealocular evidencemurder convictionsafe administration of criminal justiceacquittal of co-accusednatural witnessmedical evidence discrepancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction for murder. The petitioners were convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the complainant's father, with the High Court commuting their death sentences to life imprisonment. The petitioners challenged the conviction, arguing that the acquittal of co-accused abettors undermined the prosecution's case, that there was a discrepancy between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the number of casings recovered versus entry wounds, and alleged false implication. The Supreme Court reviewed the ocular evidence provided by the deceased's son and another witness, finding them to be natural and credible. The Court held that the acquittal of co-accused abettors does not necessarily negate the culpability of the principal offenders when their guilt is independently established by confidence-inspiring evidence. The Court rejected the plea of false implication and the argument regarding medical discrepancies, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts as consistent with the safe administration of criminal justice. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused abettors automatically invalidate the conviction of principal offenders when evidence against them is independently established?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony when there is an alleged discrepancy between the number of casings recovered and the number of entry wounds?
  • Is a son who resides at the scene of the crime considered a natural witness for the purpose of establishing a murder charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Usmani and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Federal2021 PLC (C.S.) 591 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-07
  regularization of servicecontract employeesconstitutional petitionequal treatmentmaster and servantcorporate employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions filed by contract employees seeking regularization of their services in Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. (SSGC) and parity with their colleagues whose services were regularized pursuant to a previous judgment of the High Court, which was maintained by the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether contractual employees whose contracts expired are entitled to regularization and equal treatment when a policy for regularization exists within the corporate entity. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioners are entitled to similar treatment and directed the competent authority of the respondent-company to consider their cases for regularization without discrimination, in light of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court. The key principle established is that where an employer organization has adopted a policy for regularizing contract employees, similarly situated employees cannot be arbitrarily excluded from consideration, provided they meet the requisite criteria.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract employees have a right to regularization in the absence of a statutory provision?
  • Are similarly placed contract employees entitled to equal treatment regarding regularization under an employer's policy?
  • Does a constitutional petition lie for the regularization of employment in a corporate entity governed by statutory rules or policies?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Irshad vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 811 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-05
  narcotics controlrecovery of charasbenefit of doubtcontradictory evidencechemical analysiscriminal 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 for the alleged recovery of 1300 grams of Charas. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery beyond a reasonable doubt in light of material contradictions and anomalies regarding the date of occurrence and discrepancies in the weight of the sample sent for chemical analysis. The Lahore High Court held that fatal flaws, including a glaring contradiction between the date of recovery stated in the charge and FIR versus the deposition of recovery witnesses, and a mismatch between the separated sample weight and the forensic report weight, created insurmountable doubts in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt, reaffirming the cardinal principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt arising from the prosecution evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material discrepancies regarding the date of occurrence in the charge, FIR, and ocular testimony are fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does a mismatch between the weight of the sample separated at the spot and the weight reported by the forensic laboratory render the recovery doubtful?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution case suffers from multiple infirmities and fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Anjum & 10 others vs Province of Sindh and another2021 SHC 390, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1024 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-02
  recruitment policywrit jurisdictionvested rightPolice Constable appointmentadministrative discretionwaiting listconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought directions to the Sindh Police department to appoint the petitioners as Police Constables (BPS-05), arguing they were eligible candidates who should have been selected from a waiting list for vacant positions. The core legal question was whether candidates who were not declared successful in the recruitment process possess a vested right to be appointed against vacancies arising from the non-joining of selected candidates, and whether the High Court should compel such appointments. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the petitioners failed to establish a vested right to the posts. It affirmed that an advertisement for recruitment constitutes an invitation to apply rather than an offer, and that even successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment. The Court emphasized that the discretion to fill vacancies rests with the competent authority, and judicial interference is unwarranted absent proof of mala fides or illegality. Consequently, the Court declined to substitute its discretion for that of the administrative authority, leaving the petitioners to participate in future recruitment processes.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate acquire a vested right to appointment merely by participating in a recruitment process?
  • Can the High Court compel the appointment of candidates from a waiting list against vacant posts?
  • Is an advertisement for government recruitment considered an offer or an invitation to apply?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding administrative discretion in recruitment?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan alias Shani and another vs Muhammad Ayub and others2021 SCMR 142, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-08-06
  criminal appealacquittalcommon intentionreappraisal of evidenceleave to appealocular accountsafe administration of criminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns cross-petitions filed by a convict and a complainant challenging the High Court's judgment, which upheld the conviction of Zeeshan alias Shani for murder while maintaining the acquittal of his co-accused, Abid Ali. The core legal question was whether the acquittal of the co-accused was justified given the prosecution's reliance on a shared common intention, and whether the conviction of the principal offender was sustainable given the conflicting investigative findings and ocular evidence. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of the co-accused was not based on conclusions that were preposterous or impossible, emphasizing that the reversal of an acquittal requires strong grounds and cannot be interfered with merely on the possibility of a contrary view. Consequently, the Court declined leave to appeal regarding the co-accused's acquittal but granted leave to appeal to the convict to reappraise the evidence, aiming to resolve the incompatibility between the investigative conclusions and the prosecution's case to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal merely because a contrary view is possible?
  • Is the reversal of an acquittal permissible without strong and compelling grounds?
  • Does the presence of conflicting investigative conclusions necessitate a reappraisal of evidence in a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Ali Zafar vs S.H.O. and others2021 PLJ Lahore 618, 2021 MLD 880 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-14Read full judgment →
• Zeenat Ali vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1294 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-03
  narcotics possessionbenefit of doubtdelayed chemical analysisinvestigation by complainantcriminal appealacquittalCNSA
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under section 9-A of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act (CNSA), 1997, for the alleged possession of 1382 grams of charas. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant procedural lapses, including an unexplained nine-day delay in sending samples to the Chemical Examiner, contradictions in the prosecution's evidence regarding the presence of witnesses, and the fact that the complainant acted as the Investigating Officer. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge, citing the unexplained delay in chemical analysis, the failure to produce key witnesses, and the inherent bias when a complainant investigates their own case. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt as a matter of right, not concession.

  Questions settled

  • Does the investigation of a case by the complainant himself vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt?
  • What is the legal consequence of an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce a material eye-witness mentioned in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeba Hassan and Others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2021 SHC 952 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-15Read full judgment →
• Zawar etc vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1854 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-10
  criminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubtocular accountmaterial improvementscredibility of witnessesmedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentences imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, upon the appellants for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given the alleged material improvements in the ocular account and the credibility of the eyewitnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the eyewitnesses had made significant, deliberate improvements to their testimonies during the trial to align their version with medical evidence, rendering their accounts unreliable. Furthermore, the Court noted that recoveries of weapons and other items, in the absence of matching ballistic reports or unique identification marks, were insufficient to sustain a conviction. Emphasizing the principle that the prosecution must stand on its own legs and that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the Murder Reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when eyewitnesses make material improvements to their testimony during trial?
  • Does medical evidence alone prove the identity of an assailant in a murder case?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon sufficient to sustain a conviction if there is no ballistic report matching it to the crime?
  • What is the effect of deliberate improvements in a witness's statement on their overall credibility?
  Read full judgment →
• Zarmash and another vs Haji Naeem Shah2021 PHC 124, 2022 PLD Peshawar 33 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-30Read full judgment →
• Zarina Iqbal vs Haji Jaffar and 6 others2021 MLD 863 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-16Read full judgment →
• Zari Gul and another vs Collector Customs, M.C.C., Peshawar and 2 others2021 PTD (Trib.) 863 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-03-11Read full judgment →
• Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited through its President etc. vs Sarfraz Khan Jadoon and others2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 423, 2021 SCP 248, 2021 PCTLR 1474, 2021 PSC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-10
  prospective operation of judgmentsrecovery of financial benefitsservice lawout of turn promotionwithdrawal of promotioncondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondents challenged an Office Memorandum issued by the appellant bank, which sought to recover financial benefits paid to them following promotions that were subsequently withdrawn by the Supreme Court in the case of Akhtar Umar Hayat Lalayka and others Vs. Mushtaq Ahmed Sukhaira and others. The Peshawar High Court had partially allowed the respondents' writ petition, ruling that the bank could not recover or adjust financial benefits already paid to the respondents despite the withdrawal of their promotions. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court erred in allowing the retention of these benefits. The Supreme Court examined the term 'hereby' used in the Akhtar Umar Hayat Lalayka judgment, concluding that the withdrawal of promotions operated prospectively from the date of that judgment, not retrospectively. Affirming the established legal principle that court judgments operate prospectively unless otherwise specified, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no illegality in the respondents' retention of benefits received prior to the withdrawal order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court judgment withdrawing promotions operate retrospectively or prospectively?
  • Can financial benefits paid to employees pursuant to promotions later declared illegal be recovered after the withdrawal of those promotions?
  • What is the legal significance of the term 'hereby' in the context of a court order withdrawing promotions?
  Read full judgment →
• Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited through Acting Senior Vice President vs Full2021 PLC 209 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-22
  National Industrial Relations Commissionworkman statusindustrial disputetrade union activitiesdismissal from servicewrit of certiorariconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of three writ petitions filed by Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited challenging orders passed by the Single Member and Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which set aside the termination of the private respondents—union office bearers working as Qasid and Typists—who were dismissed for alleged misconduct involving absence from duty to attend trade union meetings. The core legal questions involved whether the respondents were 'workmen' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, whether their termination over trade union activities constituted an industrial dispute or an individual dispute falling outside NIRC's jurisdiction, and the scope of a writ of certiorari under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Islamabad High Court held that the respondents, due to the nature of their clerical duties and lack of managerial or administrative powers, qualify as workmen, and that their termination for participating in union activities gives rise to an industrial dispute properly cognizable by the NIRC under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by the NIRC are well-reasoned, suffer from no jurisdictional defect, and cannot be interfered with in the supervisory writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee working as a Qasid or Typist qualify as a 'workman' under Section 2(xxxiii) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Whether termination of union office bearers for absence from duty to attend trade union meetings constitutes an industrial dispute or an individual dispute?
  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction to entertain a grievance petition under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 in cases involving trade union victimization?
  • What are the permissible grounds for issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 199 of the Constitution against orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• Zar Muhammad vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1423 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-03
  narcoticsrecovery of contrabandcase propertybenefit of doubtcriminal appealstandard of proofnon-production of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Zar Muhammad, who was found guilty by the trial court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 5500 grams of charas allegedly recovered from a gas cylinder in his vehicle. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the failure to produce the gas cylinder—the alleged container of the contraband—as case property during the trial. The Lahore High Court held that the non-production of the gas cylinder, coupled with the lack of evidence regarding its functionality or capacity to hold the narcotics, created a significant evidentiary gap. The Court emphasized that in cases involving severe statutory punishments, a high standard of proof is required. Finding the prosecution's evidence unreliable and insufficient to sustain a conviction, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release, establishing the principle that failure to produce critical case property in narcotics cases renders the prosecution's case doubtful.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce the container used for concealing narcotics as case property during trial create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Is a high standard of evidence required to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when the prosecution fails to prove the physical possibility of the alleged concealment of narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• Zamir vs The State2021 SHC 666 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-06
  narcotics recoverycharaslife imprisonmentsafe transmission of samplesburden of proofminor discrepanciescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to life imprisonment following the recovery of a large quantity of charas from a vehicle. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of narcotics beyond reasonable doubt, and whether minor discrepancies and typographical errors in the charge and police records vitiated the conviction. The Sindh High Court held that the consistent and confidence-inspiring testimonies of the prosecution witnesses proved the recovery of 110 kilograms of charas, and that minor discrepancies and typographical errors were curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court laid down the principle that courts should adopt a dynamic approach in appreciating evidence in narcotic cases, ignoring minor discrepancies that do not impact the material aspects of the case, and noted that once the prosecution establishes its case prima facie, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor typographical errors in the vehicle registration number mentioned in the charge vitiate a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does a failure to record the exact time in a Malkhana entry render the safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples doubtful?
  • When does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • How should courts approach minor discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Zamindaran Holshal through Representatives vs Qalab Ali and others2021 YLR 2315 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-10-09Read full judgment →
• Zakir Jaffer and another vs The State through A.G. Islamabad and another2021 SCMR 2084 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-18
  post-arrest bailbail for womenfair trialcriminal procedureconstitutional right
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal petitions for post-arrest bail filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of a female accused to post-arrest bail under the statutory provisions governing criminal procedure and the right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court dismissed the first petition as not pressed upon the counsel's withdrawal. In respect of the second petition involving a female petitioner, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted post-arrest bail pursuant to the first proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting the absence of disentitling circumstances and observing that the High Court had failed to address the prosecution case and defense pleas. Additionally, the Court affirmed the accused's constitutional right to present a defense and have pleas decided in accordance with law under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The key principle laid down is that a female accused is ordinarily entitled to bail under the first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. unless exceptional disentitling circumstances are established by the prosecution, while safeguarding the right to a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a female accused is entitled to the concession of bail under the first proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of disentitling circumstances?
  • Does an order directing the expeditious conclusion of a trial within a specified timeframe deprive an accused of the right to lead a defense under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakir Hussain Larik vs Province of Sindh & another2021 SHC 115 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-21Read full judgment →
• Zakir Ghayyur Sabir vs Government Of The Punjab, through Additional2021 PLJ Lahore 156 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• Zakia Naz, Charge Nurse, Capital Hospital, Islamabad and 3 others vs Capital Development Authority through Chairman and others2022 PLJ Islamabad 93 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zaka Ullah and another vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1160 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-18
  murder in police custodycourt premises shootinganti-terrorism trialcapital sentence reductionmitigating circumstancesballistic expert reportspot arrestblood feud
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Punjab Arms Ordinance 1965, and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for murdering a high-security accused within court premises while in police custody. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence, the evidentiary value of spot arrests and weapon recoveries matched by the forensic agency, and the presence of mitigating circumstances warranting a reduction of the death sentence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the charge through consistent private and official eyewitness testimonies corroborated by medical evidence and positive ballistic reports. Consequently, while upholding the conviction, the Court altered the death sentence to imprisonment for life on account of mitigating factors, including the deceased's violent background and previous enmity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in conducting a post-mortem examination is sufficient by itself to discard an overwhelming ocular account supported by spot arrest?
  • Does the simultaneous dispatch of crime empties and recovered weapons to the ballistic expert render the recovery inconsequential when the accused is apprehended red-handed at the spot?
  • Can previous enmity and the criminal background of the deceased serve as mitigating factors to reduce a capital sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether a daylight murder committed in police custody within court premises attracts the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Zainab vs The State2021 SCMR 799 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-14
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlhazanatDNA testrecovery of charas
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this petition, the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, at Police Station One Battalion Pak Coastguards, Uthal, regarding the alleged recovery of 6.250 kilograms of charas, while accompanied by a two-year-old suckling baby. The core legal question involved the consideration of hazanat and the circumstances of the petitioner's arrest with an infant in relation to the grant of post-arrest bail. The court did not decide the bail petition finally but instead issued an interim direction, holding that before proceeding further with the matter, a DNA test of the child must be carried out to ascertain her age and her biological relationship with the petitioner. The case was accordingly adjourned to await the DNA report.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted to a woman arrested with a suckling baby under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can the court order a DNA test to ascertain the age and relationship of an infant accompanying an accused seeking bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Zain-ud-Din vs Noor Muhammad etc2021 PHC 54 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-25Read full judgment →
• Zain Ul Rahman and another vs Collector Of Customs, Mcc, Custom House, Peshawar and 3 others2021 PTD (Trib.) 595 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-07-01Read full judgment →
• Zain Ali vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1002 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-28
  narcotic substancespossession of narcoticsburden of proofchemical examiner reportcriminal appealSection 103 CrPCtransportation of narcotics
  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 transporting 563 kilograms of charas and 1.5 kilograms of opium in a vehicle. The core legal questions concerned whether the driver of a vehicle is liable for narcotics found in secret cavities, the applicability of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in narcotics cases, and the validity of the chemical examiner's report. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the driver of a vehicle is responsible for its contents, including narcotics, as they are in control of the vehicle. The Court affirmed that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded by Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and that police officials are competent witnesses. Furthermore, the Court held that once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The conviction was maintained as the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is the driver of a vehicle legally responsible for narcotics discovered within secret cavities of that vehicle?
  • Does the requirement for independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to searches and arrests made under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can the testimony of police officials be discarded solely on the ground that they are interested witnesses in narcotics cases?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaigham Abbas vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 298 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-30
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancescharas recoverywrapper weightstatutory embargo
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Zaigham Abbas in case F.I.R. No. 326 dated 18.6.2019, registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Qilla Deedar Singh, District Gujranwala, involving the alleged recovery of 1120 grams of charas. The core legal question concerns whether the offense falls under Section 9(b) or 9(c) given that the recovered quantity marginally exceeds one kilogram and the record is silent on whether the weight included the wrapper, alongside the evidentiary value of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency report. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail. The ratio decidendi is that where the recovered narcotic quantity marginally exceeds the threshold and forensic reports do not wholly corroborate the prosecution, coupled with the fact that the case is not hit by the statutory embargo and the petitioner has been incarcerated without trial conclusion, continued detention amounts to preventive punishment. The key principle laid down is that marginal excess in narcotic quantity combined with inconclusive forensic corroboration and lack of necessity for continuous incarceration warrants the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a marginal excess of narcotic contraband over one kilogram raise a question for trial regarding applicability of Section 9(b) or 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted when the Punjab Forensic Science Agency report does not wholly corroborate the prosecution version?
  • Is continuous detention for an indefinite period permissible when the accused is behind bars and the investigation is complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaigham Abbas and 10 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Op and HRD and 14 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 486 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-29
  retrospective applicationpolicy guidelinesadministrative lawjudicial reviewvested rightscompetitive examinationprospective effect
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the retrospective application of amendments to the 'Policy Guidelines for Foreign Appointments and Postings in Pakistan's Diplomatic Missions Abroad' regarding the selection of Community Welfare Attaches (CWAs). The petitioners, who had successfully passed the written test under the 2016 Policy—which allocated 80% weightage to written scores and 20% to interviews, with no minimum passing marks for interviews—were subjected to new criteria approved by the Prime Minister on December 10, 2019. These amendments introduced a 50% minimum passing mark for interviews and adjusted the weightage to 60% written and 40% interview. The core legal question was whether these policy amendments could be applied retrospectively to a selection process that had already commenced. The Court held that executive policy changes cannot operate retrospectively to the disadvantage of candidates unless explicitly stated. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioners must be evaluated under the original 2016 Policy criteria. The key principle laid down is that administrative policies, absent express provision, must operate prospectively and cannot disrupt a competitive selection process already in progress to the detriment of participants.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executive policy amendment be applied retrospectively to a competitive selection process that has already commenced?
  • Does a candidate have a vested right to be evaluated under the policy criteria in force at the time of the advertisement?
  • Can a court interfere with the policy-making domain of the executive when such policies are applied retrospectively to the detriment of candidates?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Hussain vs The State, etc2021 KLR Criminal Cases 62 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-11Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ali Shah and others vs Board Of Revenue, Peshawar and others2021 CLC 1483 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-12Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmed, Retired University Officer vs Government Of Azad Jammu2021 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 8 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad and others vs The State and others2022 YLR 189 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-08
  murdercapital sentencebenefit of the doubtocular accountmedical evidencecontradictionsmotivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originates from criminal appeals and a murder reference arising out of a judgment by the trial court convicting the appellant, Zahoor Ahmad, under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death, alongside connected appeals for acquittal and enhancement of compensation. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular account, contradictions between medical and oral evidence, proof of motive, and the evidentiary value of forensic reports. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene, that material contradictions existed between the medical and ocular evidence, and that the recovery of the weapon was legally flawed. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant on the basis of the benefit of the doubt, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the connected appeal for acquittal and revision for enhancement. The key principles laid down include that a single reasonable doubt arising from material discrepancies in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right, and that ocular testimony contradicted by medical evidence and lacking independent corroboration cannot sustain a capital conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of related and chance eye-witnesses can sustain a conviction when contradicted by medical evidence?
  • Does a discrepancy between the weapon's magazine number in the recovery memo and the forensic report render the recovery useless?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt when material loopholes exist in the prosecution's case?
  • Whether failure to prove motive is fatal to the prosecution when ocular testimony lacks credibility?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid, etc vs The State etc2021 LHC 835 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-08Read full judgment →
• Zahid vs The State and another2021 MLD 1097 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-15
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtmurder trialocular evidencemedical evidencefalsus in uno falsus in omnibusacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge for the murder of Taimoos Khan. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies in the evidence. The Peshawar High Court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions, including conflicts between the site plan and recovery memos regarding the place of occurrence and the number of crime empties recovered. Furthermore, the court noted inconsistencies between medical and ocular evidence, the failure to produce key witnesses, and improvements in the complainant's testimony. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, and the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal. The court applied the principle that where prosecution witnesses are found to be untruthful, the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies, rendering their testimony unreliable.

  Questions settled

  • Does a material conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for abandoning a material eyewitness?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Does the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply when prosecution witnesses are found to have made deliberate improvements in their testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ullah vs The State2021 YLR 102 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-02-28
  post-arrest bailcross versionrule of consistencybenefit of doubtprohibitory clausedelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a post-arrest bail petition under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in case FIR No. 26/2019 registered under Sections 337-F(5), 337-F(3), 324, 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Jal Thak, Tehsil Chilas, District Diamer. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in view of a cross-version case, lack of medical reports, delay in lodging the FIR, and the application of the rule of consistency. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court allowed the petition, holding that the absence of a Medico-Legal Report created serious doubt regarding the petitioner's involvement, which warranted the extension of the benefit of the doubt at the bail stage. Furthermore, the court established that a 24-hour unexplained delay in the FIR and the grant of bail to co-accused persons justified applying the rule of consistency to admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of a Medico-Legal Report and injury sheet can create sufficient doubt to entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused facing similar allegations have been granted bail?
  • Can an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR serve as a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid son of Muhammad Ishaq vs The State2021 PSC (Crl.) 954, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 25 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-21
  sexual assaultminor victimcredibility of witnessdelayed FIRmedical evidencecriminal petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment upholding the petitioner's conviction for sexually abusing a seven-year-old girl. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of the victim's testimony for conviction, the impact of delayed FIR registration, and the relevance of the absence of physical injury in medical reports. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' findings. The Court held that the victim's testimony was consistent, mature, and confidence-inspiring, rendering it sufficient for conviction even without independent corroboration. The Court reaffirmed that sexual assault victims occupy a higher evidentiary pedestal than injured witnesses due to the psychological trauma involved. Furthermore, it established that delay in reporting sexual offenses is not fatal to the prosecution's case, as families often hesitate due to social stigma. Finally, the absence of physical injury does not automatically negate sexual assault charges, particularly when the victim is a minor who may not have resisted.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of a victim in a sexual assault case sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR for sexual assault necessarily undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction for sexual assault be sustained in the absence of physical injury on the victim's body?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Latif Bhatti vs Director General, LDA, etc2021 LHC 6552, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1114 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-09
  service lawreinstatementcompetent authorityillegal orderspublic functionarieshumanitarian groundsPunjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Sub-Engineer in the Lahore Development Authority (LDA), challenged his dismissal from service. After his departmental appeals were exhausted, he sought reinstatement through a directive issued by the Chief Minister of Punjab on 'humanitarian grounds,' which the department refused to implement. The core legal question was whether such a directive was binding upon the department and whether the Chief Minister acted as the competent authority for the petitioner's grade. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Chief Minister's directive lacked legal authority and that public functionaries are not bound to obey illegal orders, regardless of the source. The Court emphasized that executive orders must be backed by law to be enforceable. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Chief Minister was not the competent authority for employees in BPS-1 to 15 under the relevant service laws. Finally, the Court rejected the petitioner's plea of discrimination, affirming that 'two wrongs do not make a right' and that the non-implementation of an illegal order does not constitute actionable discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Is a directive issued by the Chief Minister on 'humanitarian grounds' binding on a department if it lacks statutory backing?
  • Are public functionaries legally bound to obey orders issued by political authorities that are contrary to law?
  • Does the Chief Minister constitute the 'competent authority' for employees in BPS-1 to 15 under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000?
  • Can a plea of discrimination be sustained when an illegal order is not implemented for a petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Idrees Mufti vs Deputy Commissioner, Capital Development2021 MLD 1909 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-27Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain vs The State2021 SHC 1258 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-10
  post-arrest bailarms actpolice witnessesfurther inquirytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant Zahid Hussain seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No.151/2021 registered at Police Station Ranipur under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, following the dismissal of his earlier bail pleas by the lower courts. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the challan had been submitted, no further investigation was required, all witnesses were police officials without independent corroboration, and he had no prior criminal record. The Sindh High Court held that the case warranted further inquiry and that no probability of tampering with evidence existed since the investigation was complete. The court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that tentative assessment of material at the bail stage must favour the accused where investigation is complete, witnesses are police officials, and the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the challan has been submitted and the accused is no longer required for investigation?
  • Does the lack of independent public mashirs in a police-led recovery make the case one of further inquiry?
  • Whether deeper appreciation of evidence is permissible at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain Shah Naqvi vs Additional I.G. Sindh Police and 07 others2021 SHC 446 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
• Zahid and others vs Mst. Sadia and others2021 PLJ Quetta 235, 2021 MLD 798 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-06Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ali Mastoi vs The State2021 SHC 1140 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-08
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailgas theftshort sentencefinancial liabilitycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the suspension of a five-year sentence awarded to the appellant, Zahid Ali Mastoi, by the Special Judge for Utility Court, Larkana, in relation to a conviction under the Gas Theft Control and Recovery Act, 2016. The core legal question was whether the appellant's sentence should be suspended pending the final adjudication of his appeal, given the short duration of the sentence and the appellant's willingness to deposit the outstanding financial liability. The Court held that since the sentence was relatively short and the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future due to case pendency, the sentence should be suspended. The Court granted the suspension of the sentence, admitting the appellant to bail subject to the furnishing of a solvent surety and a personal recognizance bond, while mandating the deposit of the remaining financial liability within a specified timeframe. The key principle established is that in cases involving short sentences, the suspension of sentence pending appeal is appropriate where the appeal is unlikely to be heard promptly and the appellant demonstrates a commitment to fulfilling financial obligations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended pending appeal when the sentence is of a short duration?
  • Is the deposit of outstanding financial liability a relevant factor for the suspension of sentence in gas theft cases?
  • What are the consequences of failing to comply with a court-ordered payment schedule after the suspension of a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Akhtar vs Mst. Saima Zia and others2021 PLJ Peshawar 13 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-24Read full judgment →
• Zahid Akhtar vs Mst. Saima Zia and 6 others2021 YLR 570 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-24Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ahmed vs Somiyo2021 MLD 1969 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-17Read full judgment →
• Zaheer-Uddin Ahmfd Quraishi and 13 others vs The Province Of Sindh2021 PLC (C.S.) 507 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-04
  pension restorationcommuted pensionpensionary benefitscivil service pension rulesarrears of pensionstatutory bodycontempt proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, retired employees of the Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution (SESSI), challenged the respondent's calculation of their restored commuted pension, contending that the institution failed to correctly apply Supreme Court precedents regarding pension increases and arrears. The core legal question was whether the respondent's calculation of pensionary benefits, which restricted arrears and increases to a specific date, complied with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Court, upon reviewing the calculation reports provided by the Accountant General Sindh and the respondent, held that the respondent had complied with the law and the directives of the Supreme Court. The Court determined that the petitioners' specific claims regarding the quantum of their pension were misconceived, as the respondent's calculations aligned with the established ratio. The key principles laid down are that upon the expiry of the commuted period, a pensioner's right to full pension is restored, including any increases granted during the intervening period, and that arrears are payable from the date of restoration, but not for any period prior to such restoration.

  Questions settled

  • Is a retired civil servant entitled to the restoration of their full pension upon the expiry of the commuted period?
  • Does the restoration of a commuted pension include increases granted by the government during the intervening period of commutation?
  • Can a pensioner claim arrears for the period prior to the restoration of their commuted pension?
  • Is the calculation of pension benefits by the Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution (SESSI) in compliance with the Supreme Court's directives?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmed son of Sharif Ahmed Malik and Khaleel son of Sharif Ahmed2021 SHC 250 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmed Hisbani vs Province of Sindh and another2021 SHC 230 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
• Zaheen Cooperative Housing Society Limited through Joint Secretary vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary, Cooperative Department and 4 others2021 CLC 1345 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-14Read full judgment →
• Zafran Mehmood vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 857 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-03
  murder trialbenefit of the doubtchance witnessdelayed FIRpost-mortem delayweapon recoveryburden of proofmedical evidence contradiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arose from the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the qatl-i-amd of his brother and sentencing him to death, alongside compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance witnesses, delayed reporting, inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, the evidentiary value of weapon recovery and forensic reports, and the applicability of presumptions regarding unnatural deaths inside residential premises. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the presence of the purported eye-witnesses, that unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem undermined the prosecution's case, that chance witnesses lacked independent corroboration, and that recoveries violating Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 carried no evidentiary weight. The court established that the burden of proof rests squarely on the prosecution and does not shift to the accused merely because an unnatural death occurs within a house shared by multiple residents. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution can rely solely on the presumption that a murder occurred inside a shared house to convict an accused when the foundational ocular testimony is disbelieved?
  • Does a significant and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem examination create a fatal flaw in the prosecution case?
  • Can the recovery of a weapon of offence be used as corroborative evidence when independent witnesses of the locality are not associated in violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when the prosecution fails to discharge its initial onus to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaffar vs The State2021 YLR 1918 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-04
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtballistic reportstatement of accusedocular and medical conflictacquittalanti-terrorism court
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from jail appeals and a constitutional petition against the conviction and sentences of the appellants for offences including murder, terrorism, and arms possession. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the evidentiary value of delayed forensic and ballistic reports, the consequences of failing to put incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the principle of consistency in view of co-accused acquittals. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, delayed recovery and transmission of crime weapons to the forensic laboratory, and the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence without independent corroboration. The key principles laid down include that evidence not put to an accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against them, that eyewitnesses disbelieved as to co-accused require unimpeachable independent corroboration to convict others, and that delayed or mishandled ballistic evidence cannot safely support a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a piece of evidence or circumstance not put to an accused person during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered against them?
  • Whether eyewitnesses disbelieved with respect to an acquitted co-accused can be relied upon against other co-accused without independent corroboration?
  • Does a significant and unexplained delay in sending crime empties and recovered weapons to the forensic laboratory render the ballistic expert report unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a material conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the nature and location of injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar vs The State and others2018 SCMR 326, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 1034 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-26
  Criminal appealMurderOcular evidenceContradictions in evidenceDelay in FIRAcquittal of co-accusedCorroborative evidenceAbscondanceAppreciation of evidenceCapital charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302(b) PPC and the subsequent enhancement of his sentence from life imprisonment to death by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the reliability of the ocular evidence, motive, recovery, and abscondance. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that the ocular evidence was unreliable due to material contradictions between witnesses, an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the unnatural conduct of the eyewitnesses. It was further ruled that supportive/corroborative evidence (medical, motive, recovery, abscondance) could not sustain a capital conviction when the primary ocular evidence was doubtful. The acquittal of a co-accused on the same evidence also weakened the prosecution's case against the appellant.

  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Mehmood vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1596 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-02
  pre-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustmisappropriationbail dismissalmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through petitions filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 1127 dated 10.06.2020 registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Nawab Town, Lahore, concerning the alleged misappropriation of a motor vehicle entrusted to the petitioners. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail when they are specifically nominated in the crime report, implicated during police investigation through a rent deed, and where the recovery of the misappropriated vehicle remains outstanding. The court held that the petitioners failed to establish any mala fide or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant or the police for their false implication, and that the recovery of the vehicle is yet to be effected. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitions and recalled the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted earlier, establishing that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief unavailable to accused persons prima facie connected to the crime without proof of mala fide.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused specifically nominated in a crime report for criminal breach of trust is entitled to pre-arrest bail when recovery of the misappropriated property is pending?
  • Is pre-arrest bail an extraordinary relief that requires proof of mala fide or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant or police?
  • Whether an accused found involved during police investigation pursuant to an attested rent deed can claim pre-arrest bail without establishing malice?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Khan and another vs The State2022 SCMR 864, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 131, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 615 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-11
  Section 9(c) CNSAsafe custodytransmission of samplesrecovery memochemical examinerunexplained delayacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a criminal jail petition converted into an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against judgments of the Trial Court and High Court convicting the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act (CNSA). The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the recovery of alleged contraband, maintained an unbroken chain of safe custody, and ensured prompt, safe transmission of samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions between the complainant and the recovery witness, non-production of the Moharrar who received the seized contraband, non-production of the official who delivered samples to the examiner, and an unexplained four-day delay in delivering samples to the FSL. The Court reiterated that in view of the severe punishments under Section 9(c) CNSA, the prosecution is bound to prove safe custody and prompt transmission to rule out tampering or substitution. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in sending samples of seized contraband to the Chemical Examiner casts doubt on safe transmission and chain of custody?
  • Is the prosecution required to establish unbroken safe custody and safe transmission of samples to sustain a conviction under Section 9(c) of the CNSA?
  • What is the effect of non-production of the Moharrar and the carrier who delivered samples of contraband to the FSL?
  • Whether material contradictions between the complainant and recovery witness regarding the recovery memo and place of concealment render the recovery doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal, Mazhar Hussain And Muhammad Saleh vs The State and others2021 SCMR 1909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-11
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationcross-versioncriminal justicelibertyreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that cancelled the pre-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioners in a cross-version criminal case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in recalling the bail granted by the trial court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in cancelling the bail. The Court reaffirmed that the considerations for granting bail and cancelling bail are distinct. Bail, once granted, should not be interfered with unless there are exceptional grounds, such as misuse of the concession, tampering with evidence, likelihood of absconsion, or the discovery of fresh incriminating material. The Court emphasized that the liberty of an individual is a precious constitutional right and that courts must be cautious not to curtail it without strong, justifiable reasons. Finding that the petitioners had not misused their liberty and that the initial bail order was well-reasoned, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the petitioners' bail.

  Questions settled

  • What are the specific legal grounds required for the cancellation or recalling of bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Can a High Court interfere with a bail-granting order simply by re-evaluating the merits of the case without evidence of misuse of liberty or other exceptional circumstances?
  • Is the principle of 'benefit of reasonable doubt' applicable at the bail stage of criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →