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.

• University Of Engineering And Technology, Lahore and anothers vs Messrs2021 CLC 596 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-01Read full judgment →
• Universal Insurance Company and another vs Karim Gul and another2021 CLD 1189, 2021 SCP 326, 2021 PLD Supreme Court 906, 2022 PCTLR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-08-24
  contract interpretationcontra proferentem ruletotal lossconstructive total losssale of goodsinsurance salvageambiguity in contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a dispute over the sale of a damaged motor vehicle, classified as a "total loss" by an insurance company and sold to the respondent as salvage. The core legal question was whether the term "total loss" in the contract implied an "actual total loss" (mere wreckage) or a "constructive total loss" (a vehicle that retains its character despite damage), thereby determining the appellant's liability for the respondent's inability to register the vehicle. The Supreme Court held that the contract, drafted by the insurance company, contained an ambiguity regarding the technical meaning of "total loss." Applying the contra proferentem rule, the Court resolved this ambiguity against the drafter, interpreting the term as a "constructive total loss." Consequently, the Court held that the subject matter of the contract remained a motor vehicle, not mere wreckage, and the appellant was liable for the respondent's loss. The judgment establishes that contractual terms drafted by a party in a specialized industry must be interpreted against that party where ambiguity exists, and that "constructive total loss" implies the property retains its essential character.

  Questions settled

  • How should the term 'total loss' be interpreted in a contract for the sale of salvage when the contract is drafted by an insurance company?
  • Does the contra proferentem rule apply to resolve ambiguities in contracts drafted by parties with specialized industry knowledge?
  • What is the legal distinction between 'actual total loss' and 'constructive total loss' in the context of a contract for the sale of damaged goods?
  • Does a vehicle sold as 'total loss' salvage retain its character as a motor vehicle for the purposes of a contract of sale?
  Read full judgment →
• Universal Insurance Company and another vs Karim Gul & another2021 SCP 326 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-08-24
  contract interpretationcontra proferentem ruletotal lossconstructive total losssale of goodsinsurance lawsalvage
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a dispute regarding the sale of a damaged motor vehicle described as a 'total loss' in the contract. The core legal question was whether the term 'total loss' signified 'actual total loss,' reducing the subject matter to mere wreckage, or 'constructive total loss,' where the vehicle retained its character as a car. The Supreme Court held that the contract, drafted by the insurance company, contained an ambiguity regarding the technical meaning of 'total loss.' Applying the contra proferentem rule, the Court resolved this ambiguity against the drafter, concluding that the subject matter was a 'constructive total loss.' Consequently, the vehicle remained a car, and the buyer held an enforceable expectation of being able to use and register it. The principle laid down is that where a contract is drafted by one party, ambiguous terms must be construed against that party, and the subject matter of a sale must be interpreted objectively based on the reasonable understanding of the parties at the time of the contract.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'total loss' in a contract for the sale of salvage imply 'actual total loss' or 'constructive total loss'?
  • How should ambiguous terms in a contract be interpreted when the contract is drafted by one party?
  • Does the definition of 'goods' under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 include damaged wreckage?
  • Is a seller liable for the buyer's inability to register a vehicle sold as salvage if the contract is interpreted as a sale of a car?
  Read full judgment →
• United Refrigeration Industries Limited and others vs Director, Directorate2021 PTD 1430, PTCL 2022 CL.98 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-08
  customs tariff classificationretrospective effectdepartmental practiceclassification committeeHS Codepolymeric MDItariff ruling
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves several Reference Applications impugning a common judgment of the Customs Appellate Tribunal relating to the correct customs tariff classification of imported polymeric methylene polyphenylene isocyanates (Polymeric MDI). The core legal questions centered on whether the goods were correctly classifiable under HS Code 3824.9091 during the disputed period of July 2013 to March 2016 pursuant to existing classification rulings, and whether a subsequent determination altering the classification via Public Notice No. 9/2017 could apply retrospectively. The Sindh High Court held that the goods were rightly classifiable under HS Code 3824.9091 during the disputed period in line with valid national sub-headings and rulings by the competent Classification Committee, and that any departure from a settled departmental practice or tariff ruling can only apply prospectively and cannot retroactively invalidate past clearances or justify penalties for mis-declaration in good faith. The key principle laid down is that changes in customs classification and tariff rulings operate prospectively from the date of the ruling and cannot be applied retrospectively to past consignments cleared under a consistent, long-standing departmental practice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the goods in question were correctly classifiable under HS Code 3824.9091 during July 2013 to March 2016 pursuant to the classification rulings and committee letters?
  • Whether subsequent determination of classification through a public notice would apply retrospectively to past consignments?
  • Whether the department has the power to impose fine and penalty for mis-declaration when goods are cleared under a previously settled and valid departmental classification practice?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd., through Regional Chief Executive UBL vs Fareedullah Khan2021 PLC 111 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-29
  labour lawtermination from servicecompulsory retirementdoctrine of proportionalitydisciplinary penaltyabsence from dutylabour appellate tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a judgment by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had modified an employee's termination from service to compulsory retirement. The employee, a bank cashier, was terminated for continuous absence from duty. While the Labour Court initially dismissed his grievance application, the Appellate Tribunal modified the penalty, finding termination too harsh given the employee's 19-year service record and the lack of evidence regarding habitual absenteeism. The core legal question was whether the modification of the penalty by the Appellate Tribunal was commensurate with the employee's misconduct under the doctrine of proportionality. The Court held that the penalty of termination was disproportionately harsh for a first-time instance of absence, especially considering the employee's long tenure. Affirming the Tribunal's decision, the Court laid down the principle that the discretion to impose disciplinary penalties must be exercised fairly, justly, and equitably, adhering to the doctrine of proportionality, which requires that the punishment be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and the specific circumstances of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of proportionality apply to the imposition of penalties in labour law cases?
  • Can a Labour Appellate Tribunal modify a penalty of termination to compulsory retirement?
  • Is termination from service a disproportionate penalty for an employee with long service who is not a habitual absentee?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Shoaib Ahmed and 5 others2021 PLD Sindh 394 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-09Read full judgment →
• Union Public Service Commission vs Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and others2021 SCInd 132 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-03-05Read full judgment →
• Union of India vs A. Alagam Perumal Kone & Others2021 SCInd 102 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
• Union of India And Ors vs P. Balasubrahmanayam2021 SCInd 130 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-03-04Read full judgment →
• Umer Yamin vs Inspector General Of Police and another2021 PLC (C.S.) 415 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-17
  Son QuotaPolice recruitmentStanding OrdersCivil service rulesConstitutional petitionDeceased quotaProvincial government approval
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought a declaration of eligibility for appointment as a Junior Clerk in the Sindh Police Department under a 'Son Quota' policy, relying on Standing Order No. 260 of 2011. The core legal question was whether the Inspector General of Police (IGP) has the authority to create a 'Son Quota' for recruitment via Standing Orders without provincial government approval, and whether such appointments are legally permissible under existing civil service rules. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Standing Orders issued by the IGP without the approval of the Provincial Government are a nullity in the eyes of the law, as established by Supreme Court precedents. The Court further clarified that the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, provide for a 'deceased quota' but do not authorize a 'Son Quota' for such appointments. The key principle laid down is that recruitment in the police force must adhere to established recruitment rules and competitive merit, and the IGP cannot bypass these requirements through unauthorized Standing Orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Inspector General of Police issue Standing Orders for recruitment without the approval of the Provincial Government?
  • Does the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, provide for a 'Son Quota' for recruitment in the police department?
  • Are appointments to the post of Junior Clerk in the Sindh Police valid if made solely on the basis of a 'Son Quota' standing order?
  Read full judgment →
• Umer Khan vs Rehmat Ullah and another2021 MLD 992 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-06-19
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailcriminal proceduredismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court upon a petition filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Sessions Judge, Chilas. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient grounds exist to recall the bail granted to the accused, who was nominated in the FIR for allegedly enticing away a woman for marriage. The Court held that the petitioner failed to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned bail-granting order, noting that the trial court had properly considered all pro and contra arguments. Consequently, the petition for bail cancellation was dismissed in limine. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail granted by a trial court will not be interfered with or cancelled under Section 497(5) unless a clear legal infirmity or misappraisal of the record is demonstrated by the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail once granted by a trial court can be cancelled under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without showing a legal infirmity?
  • Does the enticement of a person for marriage furnish adequate grounds for the cancellation of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Umer Khan vs Provincial Government through Chief Secretary and 6 others2021 MLD 1976 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
• Umer Din Mehar and others vs Province Of Sindh and others2021 PLD Sindh 298 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-10Read full judgment →
• Umer Daraz vs Additional Sessions Judge and others2021 LHC 4486, 2021 MLD 2077, 2022 PLJ Lahore 44 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-06Read full judgment →
• Umer Atta-ur-Rehman Khan vs Ministry of Energy, etc2021 PLC (C.S.) 1126, 2021 LHC 370 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-22
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitymaster and servantcontract employeenon-statutory rulesreinstatementdamages
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed against the dismissal of the petitioner from contract service as an Administrative Officer at National Engineering Services Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. (NESP AK) and the subsequent rejection of his departmental appeal following allegations of submitting a forged transcript. The core legal questions involved whether the service rules of NESP AK are statutory in nature to maintain a constitutional petition and whether a contract employee can seek reinstatement through writ jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that since the Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1974 of NESP AK were framed by the company's Board of Directors under its Articles of Association rather than by or with the approval of the Federal Government under a statute, they are non-statutory. Consequently, the relationship is governed by the principle of 'Master and Servant' and a constitutional petition is not maintainable. The court further held that a contract employee whose contract period has expired cannot seek reinstatement through a constitutional petition and is restricted to claiming damages before the appropriate forum. The petition was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Are the service rules of National Engineering Services Pakistan (NESP AK) statutory in nature?
  • Does the principle of Master and Servant apply to employees of a company whose service rules are non-statutory?
  • Can a contract employee seek reinstatement to service through a constitutional petition?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a contract employee whose services are wrongfully terminated in the absence of statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Zia and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 98 · Lahore High Court · 2020-08-19
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirysodomycriminal investigationunder-trial prisonerevidentiary value
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 510 dated 08.06.2020, registered at Police Station Gallah Mandi, Sahiwal, involving allegations of attempted sodomy and filming the incident under Sections 377, 511, and 292-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the court was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the evidentiary status of the case at the pre-trial stage. The court observed that the FIR was initiated based on police information, and crucially, the alleged victim had not surfaced, nor was there any statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court held that the case against the petitioners fell within the scope of further inquiry. Emphasizing that the petitioners were no longer required for investigation and that continued incarceration as under-trial prisoners would serve no useful purpose, the court accepted the petition and granted bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that the absence of key witness statements or victim testimony at the investigation stage can render a case one of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a victim's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when they are no longer required for investigation purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Zaib vs The State & another2021 LHC 2582, 2022 MLD 392 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-10
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationsupervisory jurisdictionrevisional jurisdictionprinciple of consistencyidentification paraderobberysuo motu
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Umar Zaib, in a case involving robbery and house-trespass. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the principle of consistency, given that his co-accused had been granted bail by the subordinate court, and whether the High Court could exercise its supervisory and revisional jurisdiction to cancel the bail of those co-accused despite the absence of a formal cancellation petition. The Court held that the bail granting orders of the subordinate court were perverse, as they ignored critical evidence including identification proceedings, recovery of robbed articles, medical reports, and the accused's criminal antecedents. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that bail cannot be granted on the principle of consistency if the initial bail orders were legally flawed. Invoking its supervisory powers under Article 203 of the Constitution and revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court dismissed the petitioner's bail application and suo motu cancelled the bail previously granted to the co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise suo motu powers to cancel bail granted by a subordinate court?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply to bail applications if the initial bail orders were legally flawed?
  • Can a subordinate court grant bail in a subsequent petition without a change in circumstances after dismissing an earlier bail application?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to examine the propriety of bail orders under its revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 744 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-11
  post-arrest baildelay in conclusion of trialadjournments by accusedconduct of accusedstatutory delaymurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this petition, the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 1319 of 2018 registered under Sections 302, 365, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kahna, Lahore, solely on the ground of delay in the conclusion of his trial. The core legal question was whether an accused person who repeatedly requested adjournments to engage counsel and whose conduct contributed to trial delays can claim the statutory delay as a ground for post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner himself sought numerous adjournments on crucial dates when prosecution witnesses were present and delayed engaging counsel for months, he was not entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of delay in the conclusion of his trial. The court laid down the principle that an accused who actively contributes to trial delays through adjournment requests cannot benefit from the statutory delay to claim bail, as established in precedent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who repeatedly seeks adjournments to engage counsel can claim post-arrest bail on the ground of delay in the conclusion of his trial?
  • Does the period of delay caused by the accused's own requests for adjournment entitle them to statutory bail?
  • Is an accused responsible for trial delays occasioned by their failure to timely engage defense counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Rasheed Malik & Others vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2021 SHC 1166 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Umar Nazir vs Mukaram Khan2021 MLD 1676 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-01Read full judgment →
• Umar Khan vs Head Quarter Specialcommunication Organization (Sco), Rawalpindi through Director General (Sco) and 9 others2021 YLR 446 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-08-27Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 695 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-09
  suspension of sentencedeath penaltycriminal appealappreciation of evidencepost-conviction reliefdelay in hearing
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner, Umar Hayat, seeking the suspension of his sentence of death awarded by the trial court on June 18, 2013, for an offense under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that his criminal appeal, filed in 2013, had not been fixed for hearing, that he had already served approximately five and a half years in custody, and that the legal heirs of the deceased had submitted affidavits exonerating him. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had established sufficient grounds to warrant the suspension of his sentence pending the final adjudication of his appeal. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that at the stage of suspension of sentence, a deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible. The Court found that the conviction was based on proven prosecution evidence and that there was no unusual or unconscionable delay in the hearing of the appeal. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any special circumstances justifying the suspension of his sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of considering a petition for suspension of sentence?
  • Does the mere pendency of an appeal for several years constitute an unconscionable delay sufficient to justify the suspension of a death sentence?
  • What is the standard for granting the suspension of a sentence after a conviction has been recorded by a trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat alias Watto vs State2021 PLJ Cr.C (Lahore) 812 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-20
  consolidated judgmentseparate trialsremanddeath referencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal proceedings where the trial court passed a consolidated judgment encompassing both a state case registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and a separate private complaint arising from the same occurrence, which were tried independently. The core legal question was whether a single consolidated judgment could legally dispose of two distinct trials conducted separately. The Lahore High Court, relying on the precedent established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Niaz Ahmed v. Hasrat Mahmood (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 70), held with the consent of both parties that the consolidated judgment was not maintainable in law. Consequently, the impugned judgment was set aside, the matter was remanded back to the trial court for re-writing separate judgments in accordance with the law, and the death sentence of the appellant was not confirmed. The principle laid down is that separate trials cannot be concluded through a single consolidated judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can pass a single consolidated judgment for cases that were tried separately?
  • Is a consolidated judgment disposing of separate trials maintainable in the eyes of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Farooq vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 971 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-22
  cancellation of bailpre-arrest bailcross-versionmedical evidencevicarious liabilityperversityfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to Respondents No. 2 to 15 by the Additional Sessions Judge in a cross-version case registered under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 440, 447, 511, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the pre-arrest bail granted by the trial court warranted cancellation due to alleged perversity. The High Court observed that the medical evidence cast doubt on the injuries sustained by the complainant and his associates, rendering the cross-version doubtful and necessitating further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. Emphasizing that the considerations for cancelling bail differ from those for granting it, the Court held that bail granted by a competent court should not be recalled unless the order is shown to be perverse or the concession of bail has been misused. Finding no evidence of perversity, the Court dismissed the petition, reaffirming that appellate courts must exercise maximum restraint in recalling bail granted for cogent reasons.

  Questions settled

  • What are the legal grounds required for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Does the High Court act as an appellate court when reviewing an order of pre-arrest bail granted by a Sessions Court?
  • Is the determination of vicarious liability appropriate at the bail stage or should it be reserved for trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Ayaz vs Capital Development Authority through its Chairman & 042021 IHC 32 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Umair Kaleem & others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa though2021 PHC 260 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Umair Jam vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 606 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-11Read full judgment →
• Umair Arif and 6 others vs Sessions Judge Muzaffarabad/Judge Anti-2021 P Cr. L J 488 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-02-20
  anti-terrorismjurisdictionterrorismpersonal enmitytransfer of casecriminal trialheinous offence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the refusal of the Anti-Terrorism Court to transfer their criminal case to an ordinary court. The appellants, university students, were accused in an FIR under sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Penal Code read with section 6 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Anti-Terrorism Act, 2014, following a murder alleged to have stemmed from previous enmity. The core legal question was whether the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act were attracted to a heinous crime committed in furtherance of personal enmity without the specific design or objective of creating terror or coercing the government or public as defined in the statute. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir allowed the appeal, holding that a crime, regardless of how brutal, shocking, or gruesome, does not constitute an act of terrorism unless the action is designed to achieve the specific objectives or purposes enumerated in the anti-terrorism legislation. The Court laid down the principle that offences committed in furtherance of personal enmity or private vendetta do not fall within the ambit of the anti-terrorism laws.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence committed in furtherance of personal enmity fall within the scope of the anti-terrorism laws?
  • Can an act, regardless of its brutality or heinousness, be classified as terrorism if it lacks the specific design or purpose specified in the anti-terrorism statute?
  • Must section 6 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Anti-Terrorism Act 2014 be read together with section 5 of the said Act?
  • Does the mere occurrence of a crime at a public place automatically attract the provisions of the anti-terrorism law?
  Read full judgment →
• Ubaidullah vs The State2021 P Cr.LJ 90 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-02-13
  post-arrest bailproscribed organizationterrorist financingprohibitory clauseanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a bail application filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No. 29 of 2019 registered under sections 11-F(2)(5) and 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for allegedly collecting donations for a proscribed organization. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail when the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Balochistan High Court held that since the maximum punishment for the offence does not exceed five years, it falls outside the prohibitory clause, making the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception. The application was accordingly accepted and bail granted subject to furnishing surety. The key principle laid down is that in offences not falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the grant of bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does collecting funds for a proscribed organization under section 11-F of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 fall within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• U.A. Basheer Thr. G.P.A. Holder vs State of Karnataka & Anr2021 SCInd 88 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-02-17Read full judgment →
• Tufail Ahmed vs Election Commission of Pakistan & Others2021 SHC 1092 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
• Tufail Ahmad vs The State and another2021 IHC 340, 2022 YLR 1035 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-06
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymedical evidenceocular evidencetentative assessmentrecovery of weaponcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought post-arrest bail in a case involving charges of murder and attempted murder. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being nominated in the FIR, given significant contradictions between the ocular account and medical reports, and the delayed recovery of the alleged weapon. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. It reasoned that where medical evidence conflicts with the ocular account, the benefit of doubt at the bail stage must be extended to the accused. Furthermore, the Court noted that the delayed recovery of the weapon rendered it of little legal consequence and that the investigation was complete. Emphasizing that bail is not to be withheld as punishment and that prolonged incarceration without trial progress is unjustified, the Court established that a tentative assessment of the record revealed a case for further inquiry. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage?
  • Is the delayed recovery of an alleged weapon of offense a relevant factor for the court to consider when deciding a bail application?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment for an accused person?
  • What is the scope of the court's power to assess evidence during the bail stage before the commencement of trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Tri-Pack Films Ltd vs Commissioner Inland Revenue And Another2021 SHC 560 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-20Read full judgment →
• Trend International through Proprietor vs Mustafa Rehman and another2021 PLJ Karachi 56 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-25Read full judgment →
• Trans World Associates (Pvt.) Limited through VP Finance and Company2021 CLC 1255 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-25Read full judgment →
• Toursism Development Corporation Of Punjab, Lahore vs Commissioner2022 PTD (Trib.) 547 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2020-03-16Read full judgment →
• Total Parco Pakistan Limited vs Pakistan & anotherPTCL 2021 CL. 576 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Total Parco Pakistan Limited vs Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions2021 YLR 1436, 2021 IHC 54 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
• Toba Saeed through her Father vs Chairman Admission Committee2021 MLD 520 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-05-21Read full judgment →
• Times Institute (Al-Syal Education Trust) vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Communication Islamabad and 7 others2021 LHC 7560 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Yousaf and Muhammad Irfan vs The State2021 SHC 794 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-23
  criminal jail appealmurderidentification paradebenefit of doubtacquittaladverse inferencecircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants to life imprisonment under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a delayed and defective joint identification parade, the evidentiary value of unexamined material eye-witnesses, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in the face of major discrepancies and dropped original suspects. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellants. The court held that an identification parade conducted in violation of prescribed rules, combined with a significant unexplained delay, lack of corroborative ocular or circumstantial evidence, and the failure to examine material witnesses, creates profound doubts in the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case through unimpeachable evidence, and any single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a joint identification parade conducted with a significant delay and in violation of prescribed rules?
  • Does the non-production and non-examination of material eye-witnesses by the prosecution warrant an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of a defective identification test without independent corroborative evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case regarding the guilt of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Three Stars Hosiery Mills Pvt. Limited & others vs Federation of Pakistan &2021 LHC 7732, 2022 PLD Lahore 188 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-17
  Late Payment SurchargeNatural Gas TariffInterim OrdersRestitutionActus Curiae Neminem GravabitRegulatory AuthorityStay Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals filed by industrial consumers of natural gas challenging the imposition of Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) on gas dues. The core legal question is whether consumers are liable to pay LPS on arrears that remained unpaid due to interim court orders suspending revised tariff notifications, following the subsequent dismissal of those petitions. The Court held that the appellants remain liable for the LPS. It reasoned that the suspension of a notification via an interim order does not extinguish the underlying liability; rather, upon the dismissal of the substantive challenge, the liability revives retrospectively to the original due date. The Court clarified that the maxim Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit serves as a tool for restitution to restore the party prejudiced by the court’s intervention—in this case, the gas supplier—rather than shielding the litigant who withheld payment. Consequently, the Court affirmed that LPS is a statutory liability triggered by the failure to pay by the due date, and litigation cannot be utilized to gain undue financial advantage or avoid contractual obligations.

  Questions settled

  • Does an interim order suspending a tariff notification extinguish the liability to pay Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) if the underlying petition is subsequently dismissed?
  • Can a litigant invoke the maxim Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit to avoid paying statutory surcharges on dues withheld during the pendency of a stay order?
  • Is the liability for Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) on natural gas dues dependent on whether the delay in payment was deliberate or caused by a court order?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Zahid Murad2021 LHC 6014 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-04
  murderocular testimonymedical evidencebenefit of doubtfalsus in uno falsus in omnibuscriminal appealdeath sentence confirmationrecovery evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for committing Qatl-i-Amd. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony in light of significant contradictions with medical evidence and the validity of weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed. The court observed that the ocular account provided by the witnesses was irreconcilably inconsistent with the medical report regarding the nature of injuries, entry and exit wounds, and the distance of firing. Furthermore, the court noted the absence of physical evidence supporting the alleged dragging of the deceased. Applying the principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, the court ruled that because the witnesses were found unreliable regarding the acquitted co-accused, their testimony could not be safely used to convict the appellant. Additionally, the recovery of the weapon was discarded for violating Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, and refused to confirm the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' apply to criminal cases in Pakistan?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when ocular testimony is in direct conflict with medical evidence?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon admissible if the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are violated?
  • Can the evidence of witnesses who have been disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused be relied upon to convict the remaining accused?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Zahid and 3 others2022 MLD 169 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-06-03
  bail cancellationbailable offensesstripping of clothespublic viewcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by the State under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of a bail order granted to the respondents by the Sessions Court. The core legal question revolves around whether the offense under Section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is attracted on the facts alleged, making the offense non-bailable. The court held that to attract Section 354-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, two conditions must co-exist: the stripping of clothes and the exposure of the victim to public view. Since the removal of a Chaddar from the head did not fulfill the statutory requirements and other charged sections were bailable, the bail was rightly granted. The petition for bail cancellation was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What conditions must be fulfilled to attract the provisions of Section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the removal of a Chaddar from the head of a victim alone constitute an offense under Section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can bail be cancelled under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the offenses involved are bailable in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Syed Amir Muhammad2021 MLD 1381 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-21
  bail cancellationnarcotic substancesstatutory perioddeeper appreciation of evidenceprivate witnessesnon-bailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal revision application filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the trial court in a case involving the recovery of 4 kilograms of 'Ice' (narcotic substance). The core legal question was whether the trial court exercised its discretion correctly in granting bail, particularly regarding the statutory period of detention and the evidentiary assessment at the bail stage. The High Court held that the trial court erred by granting bail before the mandatory statutory period of two years had elapsed under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the High Court determined that the trial court engaged in an impermissible deeper appreciation of evidence and incorrectly relied on the absence of private witnesses, noting that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 excludes the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the High Court cancelled the bail, emphasizing that courts should be cautious in granting bail at the final stage of trial for non-bailable offences.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-association of private witnesses in a narcotics case provide valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Is the deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage of a criminal trial?
  • Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 exclude the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted in a narcotics case before the statutory period of two years of detention has lapsed?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Rizwan Akhtar alias Razi Bawa & another2021 YLR 2253, 2021 LHC 1163 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-18
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtWajtakkarmurder referencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for the murder of a minor, Muhammad Nadeem, under Sections 367-A, 377, and 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically last-seen evidence, Wajtakkar (witness of encounter), extra-judicial confession, medical evidence, and recovery of incriminating items. Upon review, the Court found the prosecution's evidence unreliable: the last-seen and Wajtakkar witnesses were interested parties whose conduct was improbable; the extra-judicial confession was weak and uncorroborated; the medical evidence failed to connect the appellants to the crime; and the recoveries were inconsequential due to lack of chemical analysis. The Court held that circumstantial evidence must be incompatible with innocence and incapable of any explanation other than guilt. Finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside their convictions and sentences, and declined to confirm the death sentences in the Murder Reference.

  Questions settled

  • Can one tainted piece of evidence be used to corroborate another tainted piece of evidence?
  • What are the essential characteristics required for a statement to be admissible as res gestae?
  • Does medical evidence alone possess the capacity to connect an accused to the commission of a crime?
  • What is the standard of proof required for circumstantial evidence to sustain a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Raja Fahad2021 LHC 1741 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-20
  criminal appealmurder referencedeath sentencebenefit of doubtmedical evidenceCT scan reportQatl-i-Amdappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder and sentencing him to death under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution alleged that the appellant inflicted fatal knife blows on the deceased during a sudden altercation over a cup of tea at a hotel. Upon evaluation of the evidence, the High Court observed that the medical and ocular accounts failed to conclusively attribute the fatal injury to the appellant, and essential medical reports like the CT scan were not formally proved through the deposition of the radiologist or concerned technician pursuant to the rules of evidence and Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge of intentional murder beyond a reasonable doubt, set aside the conviction and death sentence, answered the murder reference in the negative, and partially allowed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a medical document such as a CT scan report be relied upon as substantive evidence without producing the radiologist or technician who prepared it?
  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to attribute the fatal injury to a specific accused warrants setting aside a conviction under Section 302 PPC?
  • Is a report other than that of a Chemical Examiner or Serologist per se admissible under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without formal proof?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Sarwar2021 LHC 4929 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-07
  criminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubtchance witnessmedical evidenceocular evidenceadverse inferencecapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of the sentence. The core legal questions addressed whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the reliability of the ocular evidence provided by alleged chance witnesses, and the impact of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt. The Court found the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses whose presence was not justified, and noted a material contradiction between the ocular account and the medical report regarding the nature of the injuries. Furthermore, the Court drew an adverse inference against the prosecution for failing to examine the children present at the scene. It was held that while the burden of proof may shift under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 in cases of unnatural death within a home, this does not relieve the prosecution of its primary duty to prove the case. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's ocular evidence is contradicted by the medical evidence?
  • Does the failure to produce available witnesses, such as children present at the scene, warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of the burden of proof shifting under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when the prosecution's primary evidence is found to be unreliable?
  • When does a witness qualify as a 'chance witness' whose testimony requires independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Hanif2021 LHC 386 · Lahore High Court
  chance witnessbenefit of the doubtqatl-i-amdmurder referencedishonest improvementsdelay in post-mortemweapon recoverymotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals against the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Hanif, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd, along with an appeal against the acquittal of co-accused and a murder reference. The core legal questions pertain to the reliability of chance witnesses, the evidentiary value of delayed post-mortem examinations, uncorroborated motive, and recoveries made in violation of statutory provisions. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable chance witnesses who made dishonest improvements, lack of independent corroboration for the motive, unexplained delays in conducting post-mortem examinations, and recoveries tainted by legal non-compliance. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, and tainted ocular evidence cannot be corroborated by weak recovery or motive evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses who fail to satisfactorily explain their presence at the crime scene can be relied upon to sustain a capital conviction?
  • Does an unexplained delay in conducting post-mortem examinations create doubt in the prosecution's narrative?
  • Can tainted ocular evidence be corroborated by unverified motive and flawed weapon recoveries?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Aslam2021 LHC 6585 · Lahore High Court
  free fightsudden quarrelculpable homicide not amounting to murderself-defenceland disputemurder referencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses criminal appeals and a murder reference arising from a trial court judgment regarding an armed clash between two parties over a land dispute, which resulted in the death of one person and injuries to several individuals on both sides. The core legal question was whether the accused acted in self-defence, whether the prosecution proved its case of premeditated murder, or whether the incident constituted a sudden free fight attracting mitigating exceptions. The Lahore High Court held that neither party came to court with clean hands, both sides were prepared for a confrontation over disputed land, and the incident occurred as a sudden free fight without premeditation or undue advantage. Consequently, the court altered the conviction of the main appellant from section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (punishable with death) to section 302(c) in view of Exception 4 to section 300, reducing his sentence to rigorous imprisonment, while upholding the convictions and sentences of the other appellants for causing hurt with modifications. The key principle laid down is that where a sudden fight occurs between two groups over a disputed property without premeditation and both sides sustain injuries, individual criminal liability applies and the offence falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder within Exception 4 of section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, warranting punishment under section 302(c).

  Questions settled

  • Whether a case of mutual armed conflict over a land dispute where both sides sustain injuries constitutes a free fight warranting the application of Exception 4 of section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to section 302(c) when a fatal injury is caused during a sudden fight without premeditation or undue advantage?
  • How should courts determine criminal liability when both the prosecution and defence suppress material facts and injuries sustained on both sides during an occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Afzal2021 LHC 1325 · Lahore High Court
  benefit of doubtocular accounttest identification paradechance witnesscriminal appealmurder referencerecovery evidenceQatl-i-Amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for murder and robbery. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account provided by chance witnesses, the validity of the test identification parade, and the evidentiary value of alleged recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the ocular account unreliable as the witnesses were "chance witnesses" whose presence at the crime scene was not corroborated by physical evidence. Furthermore, the court held that the test identification parade was procedurally flawed, having been conducted jointly rather than separately, and without verifying the suspects' descriptions against the FIR. Additionally, the recoveries were deemed inadmissible due to violations of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and negative forensic reports. The court emphasized that medical evidence is merely confirmatory and cannot identify a culprit. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative, reiterating that the benefit of doubt is a right, not a concession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene is uncorroborated?
  • Does a joint test identification parade for multiple accused persons render the identification evidence inadmissible?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to identify a culprit in a criminal case?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to associate independent witnesses during the recovery of incriminating items under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Haq Nawaz2021 LHC 841 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-30
  qatl-i-amddeath sentence commutationmitigating circumstancesunproved motiveocular testimonyrecovery defectcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the qatl-i-amd of the deceased and sentencing him to death, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution case rested on an eyewitness account, medical evidence, and a recovered weapon. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related eyewitnesses, the evidentiary value of uncorroborated recoveries, the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the non-proof of an alleged motive serves as a mitigating circumstance for altering the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Lahore High Court held that while the ocular account duly corroborated by medical evidence proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive and the rejection of defective weapon recoveries constituted mitigating circumstances. The court laid down the principle that failure to prove an asserted motive, coupled with uncertainties regarding the immediate trigger of the crime, warrants the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an asserted motive constitute a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Can related eyewitnesses be relied upon in a murder trial when their presence is natural and their testimony remains unshaken through cross-examination?
  • Is a weapon recovery rendered legally inconsequential and inadmissible if mandatory provisions regarding independent local witnesses are violated?
  • Whether the unproved motive and defective recovery together provide sufficient extenuating grounds to alter a sentence of death to imprisonment for life under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ehsan Ullah2021 LHC 3163 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-03
  murderdeath sentencelast-seen evidenceWajtakkar evidencecircumstantial evidencemedical jurisprudenceskeletonized bodybenefit of the doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Ehsan Ullah, along with a connected murder reference, arising out of a case registered under Sections 302, 364, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of last-seen evidence, Wajtakkar evidence, circumstantial recoveries from open places, and the consistency of medical evidence with the prosecution timeline concerning a skeletonized body. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to untrustworthy ocular and corroborative evidence, unreliable recoveries from accessible public places, and medical evidence inconsistent with the established principles of medical jurisprudence regarding the time required for skeletonization. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellant on the benefit of doubt, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Is last-seen evidence considered a weak type of evidence requiring independent corroboration?
  • Does the recovery of a dead body or incriminating articles from an open place accessible to the public inspire confidence without independent corroborative support?
  • Can medical evidence regarding the skeletonization of a human body within a few days be relied upon when contrary to established principles of medical jurisprudence?
  • Is a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind sufficient for granting the benefit of the doubt to an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abid Majeed S/o Abdul Majeed2021 SHC 1220 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-08
  appeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocenceNAB referencecorruptionappellate interferencestandard of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the State through the Chairman NAB under Section 32 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the Accountability Court in a corruption reference. The core legal question concerned whether the trial court’s acquittal was justified based on the evidence presented and whether the appellate court should interfere with such a finding. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court’s judgment was based on a reasonable view of the evidence. The prosecution failed to establish the respondent’s involvement or receipt of any financial benefit, and the investigation was criticized for "pick and choose" tactics. The court reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal creates a double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Consequently, an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal judgment unless it is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or suffering from gross misreading of evidence. Since the trial court’s findings were sound and no glaring errors were demonstrated, the acquittal was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in a judgment of acquittal?
  • Does an acquittal by a trial court create a double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused?
  • Should an appellate court interfere with an acquittal if two reasonable views of the evidence are possible?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Prosecutor-General, Sindh vs Ahmad Omar Sheikh2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 161, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 247, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 342, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-28
  criminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubtkidnapping for ransomterrorismconvictioncriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals and petitions filed by the State against the acquittal of respondents by the High Court of Sindh, alongside a cross-appeal by Ahmed Omer Shaikh challenging his conviction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the convictions for kidnapping for ransom and terrorism-related offenses, or whether the High Court correctly acquitted the accused. By a majority of 2 to 1, the Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeals and petitions, thereby maintaining the High Court's judgment acquitting all four respondents. Furthermore, the Court allowed the appeal of Ahmed Omer Shaikh regarding his conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code, extending him the benefit of doubt and acquitting him of that charge as well. The Court ordered the immediate release of all respondents unless required in other cases. The decision underscores the principle that where the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of that doubt must be extended to the accused, resulting in acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court's acquittal of the respondents in a criminal case is sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can a conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code be set aside if the appellate court finds grounds to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused?
  • Is the immediate release of an accused mandatory upon their acquittal by the Supreme Court if they are not required in any other case?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Prosecutor General Sindh vs Shahzad Riaz and others2021 P Cr. L J 656 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-30
  criminal revisionstay of criminal proceedingsconcurrent civil and criminal proceedingsanti-corruptionpremature acquittaladjournment sine die
  Summary & questions settled

  The State through Prosecutor General Sindh filed a criminal revision application assailing an order passed by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Karachi, whereby criminal miscellaneous applications filed by the accused under sections 249 and 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were allowed and a special corruption case was adjourned sine die pending the outcome of a related civil suit. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings must be stayed simply because a civil suit involving similar or identical subject matter is pending adjudication. The Sindh High Court held that there is no universal or invariable rule requiring criminal proceedings to be stayed during the pendency of civil litigation, and that both civil and criminal proceedings relating to the same transaction can proceed concurrently. The Court established the principle that the mere pendency of a civil suit does not negative criminal liability or bar a criminal court from proceeding on the merits of a case, provided the facts alleged disclose the commission of a criminal offence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a civil suit automatically operate as a legal bar to the continuation of criminal proceedings arising out of the same transaction?
  • Can a trial court adjourn a criminal case sine die pending the final decision of a civil suit involving similar subject matter?
  • Whether criminal and civil proceedings relating to the same matter can proceed simultaneously without causing a miscarriage of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore vs Muhammad2021 P Cr. L J 713 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-03
  bail cancellationpre-arrest bailunregistered drugsexpired medicinesdrugs actmisreading of evidencemala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Drug Court in a case registered under sections 23/27, 27(1), and 27(4) of the Drugs Act, 1976. The core legal question concerned whether pre-arrest bail was rightly granted by the trial court based on findings of alleged mala fide and lack of notified inspection, and whether the High Court could directly entertain a bail cancellation petition. The Lahore High Court held that while bail once granted is normally not interfered with lightly, the High Court possesses jurisdiction to cancel bail under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. when the bail-granting order is perverse, ignores material evidence, or is based on misreading of the record. The court established that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy requiring cogent and convincing reasons of mala fide, which cannot be granted on bald assertions or where the accused is prima facie nominated with specific roles involving major statutory violations like keeping unregistered and expired medicines.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court directly entertain a petition for cancellation of bail under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without first approaching the trial court?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted on the basis of bald assertions of mala fide without cogent and convincing reasons?
  • Does the misreading of material evidence and police file records by a trial court justify the cancellation of bail under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the exceptional circumstances required for the grant of pre-arrest bail in criminal cases involving statutory offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Prosecutor General Punjab vs Ikram Ullah Khan, Duty2021 P Cr. L J 55 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-03
  discharge of accusedjudicial remandcontrol of narcotic substancesinformer privilegedual capacity of police officerrecovery witness
  Summary & questions settled

  The State filed a petition against the order of a Duty Magistrate who had refused judicial remand and discharged respondent No.2 in a narcotics case under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, while also ordering the return of seized property. The core legal questions involved the legality of discharging an accused at the remand stage based on the non-mention of an informer's name, non-association of private witnesses under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the dual role of a police officer as complainant and investigator. The Lahore High Court held that the Duty Magistrate exercised powers illegally and arbitrarily, as section 103 Cr.P.C. is inapplicable to cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the complainant is not legally bound to reveal an informer's identity under Article 8 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and a police officer can act as both complainant and investigating officer unless prejudice is shown. The petition was allowed, setting aside the discharge order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Duty Magistrate can discharge an accused at the remand stage on the ground that the name of the spy or informer is not mentioned in the FIR?
  • Does the non-association of private local witnesses vitiate a search and arrest under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can a police officer legally act as both the complainant and the investigating officer in a narcotics case?
  • Whether the provisions of section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 regarding the authority to arrest are mandatory or directory in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Prosecutor General Balochistan vs Muhammad Ashfaq2021 P Cr. L J 186 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-18
  criminal appealacquittalrecovery of weaponbenefit of doubtdouble presumption of innocencearms ordinancerevaluation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant criminal appeal was filed by the State under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the acquittal of the private respondent by the trial court under Section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution had established the recovery of the crime weapon beyond a reasonable doubt to warrant a conviction. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery, citing an unexplained delay in sending the weapon to the firearms expert, the implausibility of recovering a lightweight bullet empty from a running water drain after twenty-five days, the failure to associate independent private witnesses from a populated area, and the fact that the accused had already been acquitted in the main murder case. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating a reasonable dent in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt, and that an acquittal reinforces the double presumption of innocence which cannot be disturbed without strong and cogent evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused earn the benefit of doubt based on a single circumstance that creates a reasonable dent in the prosecution's case?
  • Whether an unexplained delay in sending a recovered weapon to a firearms expert affects the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal in an arms recovery case when the evidence in the connected main murder case has already been disbelieved?
  • What quantum of evidence is required to disturb the findings of an acquittal which carries a double presumption of innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Police Station Skardu vs Shabbir Hussain2022 YLR 701 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-12-02
  bail cancellationmurdercapital punishmentself defense pleaprima facie evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner/complainant moved a bail cancellation petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside an order whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Skardu granted bail to the respondent/accused in a case registered under sections 302, 324, and 337-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the respondent was entitled to bail on the plea of self-defense arising from an alleged attempted rape of his wife, and whether sufficient grounds existed for the recall of bail. The court held that the plea of self-defense was unsubstantiated by any prosecution witness statements or the victim's testimony, and that the accused was directly charged with a capital offense supported by prima facie evidence and recoveries. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and recalled the bail granted to the accused. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is nominated for a capital offense and the plea of self-defense lacks prima facie evidentiary support from the record, bail should not be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail granted to an accused charged with a capital offence can be cancelled when the plea of self-defense lacks evidentiary support?
  • Does the direct nomination of an accused in the FIR along with incriminating recoveries constitute sufficient ground for the recall of bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Police Station City Gilgit vs Muhammad Nadeem2018 YLR 1888, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 834 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2018-04-04Read full judgment →
• The State through Joint Director (Assets) Regional Directorate, ANF, Lahore2021 MLD 1664 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-09
  narcotic drugspsychotropic substanceschemical examiner reportburden of proofacquittal appealControl of Narcotic Substances Acttesting protocols
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court in a narcotics case involving the recovery of Buprenorphine injections, tablets, and intoxicant syrup. The core legal questions were whether the possession of branded pharmaceutical drugs constitutes an offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, and whether the prosecution sufficiently established the nature of the recovered contraband. The High Court held that the trial court erred in concluding that branded drugs fall outside the scope of the Act, as Buprenorphine is a psychotropic substance regardless of its brand name. However, the Court maintained the acquittal because the prosecution failed to substantiate the nature of the contraband. The key principle laid down is that a Chemical Examiner’s report must explicitly contain the protocols of the tests applied, as required by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analyst) Rules 2001. Without these protocols, the report is insufficient to prove the substance is a narcotic or psychotropic drug, thereby failing to meet the burden of proof required for conviction under the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of branded pharmaceutical drugs containing psychotropic substances fall under the purview of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is the prosecution required to contact manufacturing companies to verify the nature of seized pharmaceutical contrabands?
  • What are the consequences of a Chemical Examiner's report failing to specify the testing protocols applied to the seized material?
  • Does the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 apply to substances that are also regulated under other laws?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Director General FIA, Islamabad vs Alif Rehman2021 CLD 472, PLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 73, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 473, 2021 SCMR 503, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-15
  foreign exchange regulationillegal currency exchangesuperdaricomplete justiceSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner Department sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had allowed a criminal revision and ordered the return of seized Pakistani currency to the respondent, who was accused of dealing in foreign currency without authorization under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The core legal question revolved around the legality of dealing in foreign currency without permission and the propriety of returning seized currency allegedly used in such illegal exchange. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment was unsustainable and ignored the statutory requirements for foreign currency dealing and exchange companies. Invoking its powers under Article 187 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to do complete justice, the Court set aside the judgments of both the High Court and the Trial Court regarding the return of the seized funds, directing the Trial Court to decide the superdari application afresh in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to do complete justice irrespective of procedural technicalities?
  • Does dealing in foreign currency without the permission or authorization of the State Bank of Pakistan constitute a violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947?
  • Whether seized currency allegedly used in illegal foreign exchange transactions can be handed over on superdari without considering the statutory prohibitions?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Assistant Director (ANF) vs III-Additional Sessions2021 PLD Sindh 530 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-12
  territorial jurisdictionplace of trialnarcotics casecriminal revisionordinary place of inquiryFIR registration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Sukkur, which transferred a narcotics case to the District Court of Khairpur based on territorial jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses jurisdiction to try an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, when the offence was committed outside its local limits, despite the FIR being registered at a police station within its jurisdiction. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision to transfer the case. The Court held that the place of FIR registration does not confer jurisdiction upon a court if the offence occurred elsewhere. Relying on Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Court established the principle that every offence must ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the offence was committed. The Court emphasized that the statutory language of Section 177 is mandatory, leaving no room for exceptions based on the location of the police station where the FIR was lodged.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of an FIR at a police station within a specific district automatically confer territorial jurisdiction upon the courts of that district to try the offence?
  • Does Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandate that an offence must be tried by a court within the local limits where the crime was committed?
  • Can a trial court transfer a case to another district if it determines it lacks territorial jurisdiction over the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Apg Punjab Bahawalpur vs Additional Sessions Judge, Yazman & two others2021 LHC 1657 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-10Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Noroz Khan alias Abu Bakar2021 MLD 2069, 2021 PHC 118 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-09
  appeal against acquittalnocturnal identificationdouble presumption of innocenceinjured witnessanti-terrorismreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court acquitting the accused-respondent of charges under sections 302/324/458/337-D/148/149 PPC and 7 ATA. The core legal question involves the reliability of nocturnal identification by injured witnesses and the strict scope of interference in appeals against acquittal. The Peshawar High Court held that where witnesses admitted they did not previously know the accused, descriptions were absent from the first information report, no identification parade was held, and material contradictions existed between medical and ocular testimony, the identification of the accused was doubtful. The court reiterated that the presence of an injured witness establishes presence at the scene but does not automatically guarantee truthfulness, and that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence which will not be interfered with unless the trial court's judgment is perverse or based on gross misreading or non-reading of evidence. The appeal was consequently dismissed, upholding the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the presence of an injured witness at the scene of the crime automatically establishes the truthfulness of their testimony regarding the identification of the accused?
  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in a judgment of acquittal where the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence?
  • Does the failure to conduct an identification parade or provide a physical description in the first report create a reasonable doubt regarding the identity of an accused unknown to the witnesses?
  • Is a single material contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence sufficient to impeach the credibility of a witness in a capital case?
  Read full judgment →
• The Registrar, Islamabad High Court, Islamabad vs Naseer Ahmed Kayani, Advocate and 20 others2021 PLD Islamabad 203 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-07Read full judgment →
• The Province Of Sindh through Secretary, Education and Literacy2021 PLD Sindh 13 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-09Read full judgment →
• The Province Of Punjab through Secretary, Finance Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and others vs Kanwal Rashid and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 1060, 2021 P SC 853, 2021 SCMR 730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-09
  family pensionunmarried daughtercivil servantsregular source of incomegender discriminationrule making poweradministrative clarification
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a challenge to a clarification issued by the Finance Department, Government of the Punjab, which asserted that an unmarried daughter of deceased civil servant parents could not draw the pension of both parents simultaneously. The Department contended that one pension constituted a 'regular source of income,' thereby disentitling her from the second under Rule 4.10 of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963. The Supreme Court examined whether such a restriction was legally sustainable under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and the Constitution. The Court held that the Finance Department lacked the authority to modify or abridge statutory pension rights through administrative clarifications, as such power rests with the Governor. Furthermore, the Court ruled that 'acquiring a regular source of income' refers to income gained through one's own efforts or expertise, not the receipt of family pension itself. The Court struck down the clarification as discriminatory under Article 25 and a violation of the right to life and dignity under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unmarried daughter of deceased civil servant parents is entitled to draw the family pension of both parents simultaneously?
  • Does the receipt of one family pension constitute 'acquiring a regular source of income' so as to disentitle a beneficiary from a second pension?
  • Can the Finance Department through an administrative clarification modify or interpret the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963?
  • Is a policy that allows sons to draw dual pensions while restricting daughters from doing so discriminatory under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• The People's Primary Healthcare Initiative Balochistan (Pphi-B) through Chief Executive Officer vs Auditor General Of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others2021 PLD Balochistan 24 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-15Read full judgment →
• The mavilayi service Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut & Anr2021 SCInd 20 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• The Jurists Foundation through Chairman vs Federation Of Pakistan2021 YLR 241 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-18Read full judgment →
• The High Court of Judicature at Madras Rep. by its Registrar General vs M.C. Subramaniam & ors2021 SCInd 92 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-02-17Read full judgment →
• The Government Of Sindh through Secretary, Land Utilization Department2021 YLR 1 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-12Read full judgment →
• The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad vs Muhammad Ismail and another2021 P SC 1383, 2021 SCMR 1246, 2021 SCP 224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-02
  Prime Minister's Assistance Packageretrospective operationdeceased quotaexecutive orderinterpretation of statutescivil service appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which allowed respondent No. 1's writ petition and directed his appointment under the Prime Minister's Assistance Package for Families of Government Employees who die in service. The core legal question was whether the Assistance Package or its subsequent amendments could be applied retrospectively to benefit the family of a government employee who died in 1995, prior to the policy's initial promulgation on 13.06.2006. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that notifications, administrative orders, and statutes operate prospectively unless expressly provided otherwise. The Court observed that because the Assistance Package was not in force at the time of the employee's death and lacked retrospective intent, no legal right accrued to respondent No. 1. The High Court erred in presuming that rules granting rights to citizens automatically operate retrospectively.

  Questions settled

  • Whether executive policies and administrative notifications operate prospectively unless retrospectivity is expressly provided?
  • Can the benefits of a deceased government employee assistance package be claimed by heirs if the death occurred prior to the policy's promulgation?
  • Does a statute or rule granting rights to citizens automatically operate retrospectively in the absence of explicit language?
  Read full judgment →
• The District Police Officer, Mianwali and 2 others vs Amir Abdul Majid2021 SCMR 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-19
  Service lawDepartmental proceedingsCriminal acquittalReinstatementPolice constableHomicideStandard of proofService TribunalDiscretionary reliefEquity and fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved an appeal against a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment that reinstated a police constable, Amir Abdul Majid, who had been dismissed from service following his nomination in a homicide case. The central legal question addressed was whether acquittal in a criminal trial automatically mandates reinstatement in departmental service. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that a civil servant's acquittal in a criminal case does not, by itself, furnish a ground for reinstatement, as departmental proceedings have a distinct standard of proof and scope compared to criminal jurisdiction. While acknowledging the Service Tribunal's flawed approach in considering acquittal as the sole criterion, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the reinstatement order. This decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case, including the respondent's dubious nomination, contradictory prosecution evidence, and the trial court's finding that the charge was preposterous, ultimately concluding that his presence would not be detrimental to the department.

  Read full judgment →
• The Director, Directorate General Of Intelligence And Investigation2021 PTD 195 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-30
  smugglingCustoms Act 1969statutory interpretationbetel nutcriminal revisionprohibited goodscustoms duty evasion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Special Criminal Revision Applications challenging an order by the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) which declared criminal proceedings regarding the seizure of betel nuts as coram non judice. The core legal question was whether the definition of smuggling under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969 is restricted exclusively to specified or notified goods, or if it encompasses other goods imported in violation of restrictions or with the intent to evade customs duties. The Court held that the definition of smuggling is not limited to specified or notified items. It ruled that any goods brought into Pakistan in breach of existing prohibitions or restrictions, or with the intent to evade customs duties, constitute smuggled goods under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969. The Court emphasized that criminal and civil liability proceedings are distinct and can occur simultaneously. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, directing the trial court to proceed with the cases in accordance with the law, clarifying that the scope of smuggling is broad and not confined to specific categories of goods.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of smuggling under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969 apply only to specified or notified goods?
  • Can criminal proceedings for smuggling be initiated for goods that are neither specified nor notified if they are imported in violation of restrictions or to evade customs duties?
  • Can criminal proceedings and civil liability proceedings under the Customs Act, 1969 be carried out simultaneously?
  Read full judgment →
• The Director General (Intelligence And Investigation Inland Revenue), Islamabad and 2 others vs The Additional Sessions Judge-Iv, West Islamabad and 4 others2021 PTD 1585 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-23Read full judgment →
• The Director Customs Valuation, Karachi vs M/s. Usman Traders 11 others2021 SHC 284, 2022 PTD 1314 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
• The Deputy Registrar/Representative of Employees-of Federal Shariat2021 [M] C L R 1154 · Islamabad High Court
  Federal Shariat Courtjudicial independenceutility allowanceterms and conditions of serviceRules of Business 1973administrative autonomystatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by the employees of the Federal Shariat Court (F.S.C.) seeking implementation of a notification issued by the Chief Justice of the F.S.C. revising utility allowances for its staff. The Federal Government contended that such revisions required the Prime Minister's approval and the Finance Division's concurrence under the Rules of Business, 1973, arguing that the Chief Justice lacked unilateral authority. The core legal question was whether the Chief Justice’s power to regulate staff terms and conditions under the Federal Shariat Court (Terms and Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1982, is contingent upon executive approval. The Court held that the Chief Justice exercises the powers of the President regarding staff conditions under Rule 5 of the 1982 Rules. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Chief Justice’s decision to revise allowances is not subject to the approval of the Prime Minister or the Finance Division. The principle established is that the Chief Justice has exclusive authority to regulate staff terms and conditions within budgetary limits, and courts cannot read implicit executive approval requirements into statutory rules where none exist.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chief Justice of the Federal Shariat Court have the authority to revise staff allowances without the approval of the Prime Minister?
  • Are the terms and conditions of service for the staff of the Federal Shariat Court subject to the concurrence of the Finance Division under the Rules of Business, 1973?
  • Does Rule 5 of the Federal Shariat Court (Terms and Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1982, grant the Chief Justice the same powers as the President regarding the regulation of staff allowances?
  • Can a court read a requirement for executive approval into a statutory rule that does not explicitly mandate it?
  Read full judgment →
• The Deputy Collector of Customs vs M/s. Pakistan Office Product & 232021 SHC 1106 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-01Read full judgment →
• The Controller Military Accounts (Pension) Lahore Cantonment and others2021 SCP 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-01
  minimum pensionreservist pensionArmy Pension Codereasonable classificationin pari materiaservice pensionArmed Forces personnel
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment directing the payment of "minimum pension" to a retired Army reservist. The core legal question was whether a reservist, receiving a fixed-rate "special pension" under the Army Pension Code, qualifies for the minimum pension benefits granted to retired government employees and Armed Forces personnel via various Federal Government Office Memorandums. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred in its interpretation. The Court determined that reservists constitute a distinct class of pensioners governed by specific fixed-rate regulations, separate from the category of "retired government employees" or "Armed Forces personnel" intended to benefit from the minimum pension notifications. Applying the principle of in pari materia, the Court found that the Office Memorandums do not extend to fixed-rate reservist pensioners. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the law permits reasonable classification of pensioners; as reservists are a distinct class with fixed-rate entitlements, they are not similarly situated to regular retirees for the purpose of minimum pension eligibility. Consequently, the respondent was not entitled to the claimed relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of minimum pension by the Federal Government extend to reservists receiving a fixed-rate special pension?
  • Are reservists and regular Armed Forces personnel considered similarly situated for the purpose of pension classification?
  • Can Office Memorandums issued by the Federal Government be interpreted in isolation, or must they be construed in pari materia?
  Read full judgment →
• The Conservator and Custodian of Forest & Ors vs Sobha John Koshy &2021 SCInd 70 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-02-10Read full judgment →
• The Competition Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad and others vs Dalda2021 SCP 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-22
  competition lawfact-finding inquirysuo motu noticeself-incriminationnatural justiceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Competition Commission of Pakistan against an impugned judgment concerning the scope and procedure of inquiries initiated under the Competition Act, 2010. The core legal questions involved whether an inquiry notice under Section 37(1) of the Competition Act, 2010 requires confronting the respondent with material, whether the rule against self-incrimination under Article 13(a) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 applies to administrative fact-finding inquiries, and whether evidentiary regulations governing adjudicatory proceedings prematurely apply at the inquiry stage. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment raised substantial legal questions regarding the unwarranted reading of Section 37(2) requirements into Section 37(1) proceedings and granted leave to appeal, suspending the operation of the impugned judgment in the interim while allowing the petitioner to provide the underlying working paper to the respondent through a fresh notice. The key principle laid down is that fact-finding inquiries under Section 37(1) of the Competition Act, 2010 serve to collect and evaluate information where relevant facts are yet to be ascertained, and imposing rigid procedural preconditions meant for later stages can unduly hamper the investigatory mandate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a notice of inquiry issued under Section 37(1) of the Competition Act, 2010 requires confronting the respondent with the material forming the basis of the opinion?
  • Does the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 13(a) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 apply to a preliminary fact-finding inquiry conducted by the Competition Commission of Pakistan?
  • Whether the evidentiary standards and regulations applicable to adjudicatory proceedings before the Competition Commission of Pakistan govern the initial inquiry stage?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Of Wealth Tax Companies-IV, Karachi vs Kausar2021 PTD 849 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-11Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Companies-III, Karachi vs Ferozuddin2022 PTD 648 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-02Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Messrs Fauji Foundation2021 PTD 1951 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-18
  tax referenceincome from businessincome from other sourcesinterest incomebank depositsconstituent documentscharitable trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated tax reference before the Islamabad High Court addressed whether interest income earned by the assessee on bank deposits is chargeable to tax as 'income from business or profession' or as 'income from other sources' under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question revolved around the classification of interest income in light of the taxpayer's constituent documents and prior judicial precedents involving the same parties. The Court held that the appellate tribunal was justified in holding the interest income chargeable as income from business, distinguishing the Supreme Court's precedent in Lucky Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner Income Tax on the basis that the taxpayer's constituent documents did not prohibit investment activities, and noting that an earlier appellate tribunal decision on the exact same question between the parties had attained finality. The key principle laid down is that the classification of interest income from bank deposits as income from business or other sources depends upon the examination of the business objects and prohibitions contained within the taxpayer's constituent documents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether interest income on bank deposits is chargeable to tax as income from business or profession or as income from other sources?
  • Does the classification of investment or interest income as income from business depend upon the business objects and prohibitions contained in the taxpayer's constituent documents?
  • Is the Revenue bound by a finalized appellate tribunal order holding interest income to be taxable as income from business in previous tax years between the same parties?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Ir (Legal), Rto, Peshawar vs M_s Age Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 97-a, Industrial Estate Jamrud Road, Peshawar through its DirectorPTCL 2021 CL. 794, 2021 SCP 262, 2021 PTD 1315, 2021 SCMR 1362, 2021 PCTLR · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-31
  presumptive tax regimeretrospective operationprocedural versus substantive lawincome tax ordinancetax exemptionassessment years
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court concerning the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, specifically regarding the applicability and retrospective effect of an amendment made to clause (9) of Part IV of the Second Schedule by the Finance Act, 1996. The core legal question was whether the substitution of the phrase 'who opts out of' with 'unless he opts for' in Clause 9 was procedural in nature, thereby operating retrospectively to benefit the assessee. The Supreme Court held that the amendment was substantive, not procedural, because section 80C and the exemptions under Clause 9 directly affected the legal definition and assessment of 'income' by shifting between the presumptive tax regime and the normal tax regime. Consequently, the amendment could not be applied retrospectively. The Court established the principle that statutory provisions or exemptions altering the legal computation or meaning of income are substantive in nature and operate prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise. The appeals were accordingly allowed, setting aside the High Court judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an amendment to Clause 9 of Part IV of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 by the Finance Act, 1996 is procedural in nature and possesses retrospective effect?
  • Does Section 80C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 constitute a substantive provision or a procedural provision?
  • Whether an exemption provision that alters the legal meaning or computation of income is substantive in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, ZoneII, Larger Taxpayers Unit, Lahore vs Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited, 18-Main Gulberg, LahorePTCL 2021 CL. 594, 2021 SCP 54, 2021 PSC 1181, 2021 SCMR 536 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-22
  income taxadvance paymentsale of goodsdeemed incomecharging provisionstrict interpretationdouble taxation
  Summary & questions settled

  These matters arise under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, concerning whether advance payments received in cash by assessees from customers for the sale and supply of goods constitute an 'advance' under section 12(18) of the Ordinance and are thus chargeable to tax as deemed income. The department treated cash advance payments of price as taxable advances, while the assessees resisted this, leading to concurrent findings by the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court in favor of the assessees. The Supreme Court dismissed the department's leave petitions, holding that the word 'advance' in the charging provision does not include advance payments of price for the sale of goods under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, particularly because charging provisions in tax law must be construed strictly in favor of the assessee when multiple reasonable interpretations exist. Furthermore, the Court held that taxing these amounts would result in impermissible double taxation since they were already brought to revenue account as gross receipts and taxed accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether advance payments of price received for the sale and supply of goods constitute an 'advance' under section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • How should charging provisions in tax statutes be interpreted when more than one reasonable interpretation is possible?
  • Does taxing advance payments of price that are subsequently brought to revenue account as gross receipts amount to impermissible double taxation?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-IV, Ltu Karachi vs Shunaid2021 P C T L R 151 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-01-19Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-IV, Corporate Regional Tax Office, Karachi and others vs Messrs MSC Switzerland Geneva and othersPTCL 2021 CL. 679, 2021 PTD 885 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-12Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Ltu vs MCB Bank LimitedPTCL 2021 CL. 714, 2021 SCP 252, 2021 PCTLR 1297, 2021 PSC 1301, 2021 PTD 1367, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-13
  withholding taxshow cause noticetax defaultfishing expeditionburden of proofbanking companylimitationincome tax assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  These connected appeals arose from show-cause notices issued by the Commissioner Inland Revenue under Sections 161 and 205 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, alleging failure by a banking company to deduct tax at source for tax years 2003-2006 and 2011. The core legal question was whether the notices were lawful and whether the department could rely on the precedent in Bilz (Pvt) Ltd. v DCIT (2002 PTD 1) to issue general, lump-sum notices without identifying specific transactions. The Supreme Court held that Section 161 is triggered only by a factual failure to deduct or collect tax, which requires the Commissioner to possess objective information before issuing a notice. The Court clarified that Bilz does not authorize 'fishing expeditions' or roving inquiries based on vague, consolidated figures. Consequently, the notices for TY 2003-2006 were declared unlawful due to their extreme generality and lack of application of mind. However, the notice for TY 2011 was upheld as it provided monthly breakups and specific shortfalls, demonstrating a valid basis for the inquiry. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof only shifts to the taxpayer after the department crosses the initial threshold of objective suspicion.

  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto-II, Lahore vs Messrs Sajid Flour2021 PTD (Trib.) 1747 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-10-09Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Peshawar vs Tariq Mehmood2021 P SC 529, 2021 P C T L R 350, PTCL 2021 CL. 481, 2021 PTD 578, 2021 SCMR 440, 2021 SCP 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-11
  income taxbest judgment assessmentprovisional assessmentright of appealstatutory interpretationreasonable classificationdiscriminationultra viresfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding the right of appeal under Section 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, following amendments made by the Finance Acts of 2010, 2011, and 2012. The core legal question was whether taxpayers against whom 'provisional assessment orders' were made under Section 122C (later treated as final assessments) were lawfully deprived of their right to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Court categorized the taxpayers into two sets based on the timing of their assessments. For the first set, the Court found the right of appeal remained intact under the 2011 amendment. For the second set, where the 2012 amendment explicitly barred appeals against Section 122C orders, the Court held such a bar was discriminatory under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that denying a right of appeal to a specific temporal class of taxpayers without intelligible differentia or rational nexus violates the principle of equality. Consequently, the 2012 amendment was declared ultra vires, and the right of appeal was restored for all respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission of a right of appeal for a specific class of taxpayers under Section 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, violates Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can a provisional assessment order that is deemed final be excluded from the right of appeal while other similar assessments remain appealable?
  • Does the availability of revisional powers under Sections 122A and 122B serve as an adequate substitute for the statutory right of appeal under Section 127?
  • What constitutes 'reasonable classification' in the context of fiscal legislation and the right of access to justice?
  • Whether an amendment to a tax statute can be declared ultra vires if it creates a differentiation between taxpayers without a rational nexus to the object of the law?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Peshawar vs Tariq Mehmood and others2021 PTD 578 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-11
  Income tax assessmentRight of appealProvisional assessmentArticle 25Fiscal legislationReasonable classificationUltra viresBest judgment assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the right of appeal under Section 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, against provisional assessment orders issued under Section 122C. The core legal question was whether legislative amendments, particularly the Finance Act, 2012, which sought to exclude such orders from the appellate process, were constitutionally valid. The Supreme Court held that the right of appeal is a substantive right. It determined that the Finance Act, 2012 amendment, which completely barred appeals against Section 122C assessments, failed the test of reasonable classification under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. There was no intelligible differentia or rational nexus to justify denying this right to one class of taxpayers while granting it to others. Consequently, the Court declared the relevant provision of the Finance Act, 2012, ultra vires the Constitution. The principle established is that fiscal legislation, while granting the State latitude, remains subject to constitutional equality guarantees, and administrative revision powers cannot substitute for a statutory right of appeal where substantive rights are affected.

  Questions settled

  • Does the denial of a right of appeal against a provisional assessment order violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can administrative revision powers under the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 be considered an adequate substitute for a statutory right of appeal?
  • Is a right of appeal a substantive right that must be conferred by statute?
  • Does the classification created by the Finance Act 2012 regarding the right of appeal under Section 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 satisfy the test of reasonable classification?
  Read full judgment →
• The Collector, Model Customs Through Additional Collector of Customs2021 SHC 234 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
• The Collector Of Customs, through the Assistant Collector of Customs2021 PTD (Trib.) 99 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-04-23Read full judgment →
• The Collector Of Customs, through Additional Collector of Customs and others vs Akhtar Hussain and others2021 PTD 1823 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-16Read full judgment →
• The Collector Of Customs, through Additional Collector of Customs (Law), Karachi vs Messrs Super Star Company2021 PTD 1094 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-10Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Quetta vs FazalPTCL 2021 CL. 554 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-21Read full judgment →