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.

• The Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Hyderabad vs M/s.2021 SHC 16 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Collector Of Customs, Model Custom Collectorate, Quetta vs Muhammad Asif and 2 others2021 PTD 993 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-17Read full judgment →
• The Collector Of Customs, Mcc Port Muhammad Bin Qasim, Karachi vs Shahzad Ahmed2021 PTD 2146 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-27
  customs appealacquittaljurisdictionsales tax evasionincome tax evasionspecial criminal acquittal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The Collector of Customs filed a special criminal acquittal appeal against the order of the Special Judge Customs, Taxation Karachi, which acquitted the respondent in a case registered under the Customs Act, 1969 for alleged evasion of sales tax and income tax. The core legal question was whether the customs authorities had the jurisdiction to initiate criminal proceedings and register an FIR regarding tax evasion and matters falling under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Sindh High Court held that the customs authorities acted without lawful authority and jurisdiction, as matters regarding sales tax and income tax exemptions and evasion fall exclusively within the domain of the Commissioner Inland Revenue. The court affirmed the trial court's acquittal order, holding that the proceedings were incompetent and could not result in a conviction. The key principle laid down is that customs officials cannot initiate criminal proceedings or register FIRs for sales tax and income tax violations.

  Questions settled

  • Do customs authorities have the jurisdiction to initiate criminal proceedings and register an FIR regarding sales tax and income tax evasion?
  • Whether an acquittal order passed by a trial court in a case of no evidence warrants interference in a special criminal acquittal appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, MCC Port Muhammad Bin Qasim vs M.M. Four2021 SHC 300, 2022 PTD 914 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-29Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs vs M/s. Habib Sugar Mills Limited2021 PTD 1873, PTCL 2021 CL. 393 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-26Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs vs M/s. Astrontech Inc2021 SHC 138, 2022 PTD 1629 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs vs Malik Traders Group2021 SHC 148 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-19Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs vs Abdul Ghafoor S/o Noor Muhammad2021 SHC 708, 2022 PTD 402, PTCL 2022 CL.531 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-18Read full judgment →
• The Collector Of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs vs Messrs Dream Garments2021 PTD 1042 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-15Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs MCC Port Muhammad Bin Qasim Karachi. vs M/s.2021 SHC 146 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
• The Collector Of Customs and 2 others vs Messrs A.U. Technologies and another2021 PTD 2042 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-20Read full judgment →
• The Collector Customs, through Additional Collector Model Customs2021P T D 1732 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Chief Postmaster General, Post Office, Multan and others vs Hameed-2021 SCMR 1560, 2021 P SC 1510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-25
  service appealdismissal from servicemisconductaudi alteram partempersonal hearingdisciplinary inquiryfinancial lossFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the Federal Service Tribunal's judgment, which modified a postal clerk's dismissal to a minor penalty regarding missing Postal Payment Order (PPO) vouchers. The core legal questions concerned whether the Respondent was denied a fair hearing, whether the inquiry procedure was flawed, and whether the penalty of dismissal was commensurate with the misconduct. The Supreme Court held that the Respondent was not condemned unheard, as he was granted multiple personal hearings and opportunities to defend his position. The Court found that the inquiry was conducted according to the prescribed procedure and that the Respondent's partial restitution of the lost amount constituted an admission of liability. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the Tribunal erred by arbitrarily interfering with the penalty imposed by the competent authority without identifying any procedural defect or prejudice. The judgment affirms that a personal hearing is not rendered 'meaningless' merely because it does not result in the desired outcome, and that tribunals should not substitute their discretion for that of the competent authority absent legal infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Does a personal hearing become legally 'meaningless' if it does not result in the relief requested by the employee?
  • Can a Service Tribunal arbitrarily modify a disciplinary penalty without finding a procedural defect or prejudice in the inquiry?
  • Does partial restitution of a lost amount by a public servant constitute an admission of liability for the loss?
  • Are parallel preliminary and final inquiries inherently prejudicial to the disciplinary proceedings against a public servant?
  Read full judgment →
• The Chief Administrator Auqaf vs Syed Abid Hussain (deceased) through LRs., etc2021 PLD Lahore 377, 2021 LHC 462 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-18Read full judgment →
• The Chairperson Governing Body Daulat Ram College vs Dr. Asha & Ors.2021 SCInd 3 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-05Read full judgment →
• The Chairman Board of Governors, Medical Teaching institute (Mti) Lady2021 P SC 1075, 2021 SCMR 867, 2021 SCP 142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-03
  deputationMedical Teaching Institutiontermination of deputationrepatriation to parent departmentBoard of Governorscivil servantswrit petition maintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which set aside the termination of deputation of the private respondents and directed their continued employment in the Medical Teaching Institution (MTI). The core legal question was whether the Board of Governors of an MTI is competent to terminate the deputation of civil servants working therein without assigning reasons, and whether a deputationist has an enforceable right to continue in such employment. The Supreme Court held that under Section 16(3B) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act, 2015, civil servants in an MTI are deemed to be on deputation, and the Board of Governors is fully competent to terminate their deputation at any time without assigning reasons, reverting their services to the government. The Court laid down the principle that a deputationist has no vested right to continue in deputation employment and cannot challenge an order of repatriation passed by the competent authority in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Board of Governors of a Medical Teaching Institution is competent to terminate the deputation of a civil servant without assigning any reason under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act, 2015?
  • Does a deputationist have a vested right to continue serving for the total period of deputation?
  • Whether a writ petition filed by a deputationist challenging the termination of deputation is maintainable when the employer acts within its statutory powers?
  Read full judgment →
• The Chairman Agriculture Policy Institute, Ministry of National Food Security2021 SCP 426, 2022 PSC 1094, 2022 SCMR 636 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-13
  verbal terminationservice lawsnatural justicereinstatementback benefitsgood governanceadministrative lawcontractual employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition challenged a judgment by the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside a verbal termination order and directed the reinstatement of the respondent, a driver at the Agriculture Policy Institute. The core legal question was whether an employer could terminate an employee’s services through a verbal order without providing written reasons or following due process. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the verbal termination was illegal and unjustified. The Court affirmed that verbal termination is alien to both labour and service laws and violates the principles of natural justice, which require that an affected party be given a fair opportunity to respond before any adverse action is taken. The Court emphasized that good governance necessitates that administrative decisions be conducted transparently and in accordance with established rules. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s order for reinstatement with back benefits, ruling that all terminations must be executed through written orders containing explicit reasons to ensure fairness and prevent the miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer terminate an employee's services through a verbal order?
  • Does the principle of natural justice apply to administrative decisions regarding the termination of employment?
  • Is a verbal termination order legally sustainable under service and labour laws?
  Read full judgment →
• The Bank Of Punjab, Lahore and others vs The Commissioner Inland2021 PTD (Trib.) 598 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
• The Bank Of Punjab Mirpur (A.K) vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Azad2021 PTD (Trib.) 634 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2020-09-03Read full judgment →
• The Bank Of Khyber through Branch Manager vs Messrs Kashmir Sugar2021 CLD 1220, 2022 PCTLR 1387 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-23Read full judgment →
• The Assistant Director, Post Clearance Audit, Karachi vs Messrs Shafiq2021 PTD (Trib.) 1522 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-11-28Read full judgment →
• The Assistant Collector Customs (Preventive Division), Islamabad vs Lt. Col.2021 PTD 1257 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-12-23Read full judgment →
• The additional registrar company vs Al-Qaim Textile Mills Limited2021 CLD 931 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-03
  winding-up petitionCompanies Ordinance, 1984statutory complianceannual general meetingsaudit accountsdiscretionary remedycorporate survivalSecurities and Exchange Commission of PakistanSECPsubstratum of company
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a winding-up petition filed by the Additional Registrar of Company, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), against Al-Qaim Textile Mills Limited under sections 305, 309, and 321 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The petition was based on the company's failure to comply with statutory requirements, including not holding annual general meetings and non-filing of audit accounts. The core legal question was whether a public listed company should be wound up for such statutory defaults. The Lahore High Court, noting that the Company had revived its business and filed an application with SECP for compliance, disposed of the winding-up petition. The Court directed SECP to decide the Company's pending application dated 06.04.2021, seeking permission for holding Annual General Meetings and other compliance, within one month after providing an opportunity of hearing and verifying records. The judgment emphasized that winding-up is a discretionary and extreme remedy, and courts should endeavor for the survival of the corporate sector rather than its dismantling, and that default in statutory reporting or meetings does not automatically necessitate a winding-up order, with courts often extending time for compliance.

  Read full judgment →
• The Additional Director, Directorate General Of Intelligence And Investigation-Fbr, Regional Office, Karachi and another vs Imran and another2021 PTD 1683 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-09
  smugglingcustoms dutyburden of proofmotor vehicle registrationseizure of vehiclesimport documentschassis tampering
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves several Customs Reference Applications, Constitutional Petitions, and a High Court Appeal concerning the detention of motor vehicles by Customs Authorities on allegations of smuggling. The core legal questions concern whether vehicles registered with the Excise and Taxation Department can be seized as smuggled goods solely due to the absence of original import documents, and whether the burden of proof shifts to the authorities once the owner produces prima facie evidence of lawful possession. The Court held that the detention of these vehicles was illegal. It established that upon the production of valid registration books, auction documents, and payment challans, the owner discharges the initial burden of proof under Section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969. Consequently, the burden shifts to the Customs Authorities to prove the documents are forged or the vehicle is smuggled. The Court further ruled that authorities cannot demand import records beyond the five-year period stipulated in Section 211, nor can they rely on vague forensic reports regarding tampered chassis numbers to establish smuggling without concrete evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can Customs Authorities detain a motor vehicle registered with the Excise and Taxation Department on charges of smuggling solely because the owner cannot produce original import documents?
  • Does the production of registration books, auction documents, and tax challans by a vehicle owner discharge the initial burden of proof under Section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Are Customs Authorities legally entitled to demand import documents for motor vehicles beyond the five-year period prescribed by Section 211 of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Is a vague forensic report indicating tampered chassis numbers sufficient to establish a charge of smuggling under the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Tereze Hluskova vs The State etc2021 LHC 6856, 2022 PCRLJ 1846, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 758 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-01
  narcotics smugglingchain of custodysafe custody of sampleschemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtdrug traffickingrecovery witnesscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two criminal appeals arising from a case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where the appellant, a foreign national, was convicted and sentenced for allegedly smuggling 8.5 kg of heroin recovered from her suitcase at an international airport. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecution evidence, proof of safe custody and an unbroken chain of custody of the narcotic samples, and the existence of material contradictions in police and customs testimonies. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish a safe and secure chain of custody, citing major gaps regarding the handling, deposition, and transmission of the sample parcels to the chemical examiner, alongside the withholding of crucial eyewitnesses and failure to collect mandatory corroborative evidence like CCTV footage. Consequently, the court laid down that any break or gap in the chain of custody renders the chemical examiner's report unreliable and fatal to the prosecution's case. The conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the state's appeal against a co-accused's acquittal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of a break or gap in the chain of custody of narcotic samples on the chemical examiner's report?
  • Does the non-production of essential recovery witnesses create a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Whether failure to prove safe transmission of narcotics to the forensic laboratory entitles the accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Telenor Ldi Communication (Pvt.) Ltd vs Commissioner (Appeals) Pra2021 PTD (Trib) 703 · Appellate Tribunal Punjab Revenue Authority · 2020-01-07Read full judgment →
• Tehsildar, Mardan and 5 others vs Asif Bacha2021 PLD Peshawar 166 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-25Read full judgment →
• Tayyab Raza vs The State2021 YLR 1291 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-19
  rapeunnatural offenceminor victimcapital punishmentforensic evidencecriminal appealmurder referencesentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal and murder reference arising from the conviction of the appellant for committing rape and unnatural offenses against minor victims. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to death and life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through oral, medical, and forensic evidence, and whether the capital punishment was warranted. The High Court held that the prosecution’s case, supported by the consistent testimony of minor victims, medical reports confirming sexual assault, and the forensic recovery of incriminating digital material from the appellant’s devices, was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court upheld the convictions under Sections 376 and 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. However, the court modified the sentence, converting the death penalties to life imprisonment, noting that the prosecution failed to produce all alleged victims and that the delay in reporting the offenses warranted a more measured sentencing approach. The judgment reinforces the principle that a minor victim's testimony, when confidence-inspiring and corroborated by medical or circumstantial evidence, is sufficient for conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for rape or sodomy be based on the solitary statement of a minor victim?
  • Is forensic analysis of digital devices containing pornographic material admissible to corroborate charges of sexual assault?
  • Does the failure to produce all alleged victims in a sexual assault case necessitate the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Tausif Ahmed vs Mst. Shaista Malik, etc2021 IHC 334, 2022 CLC 269 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-10-20Read full judgment →
• Tauk Ali vs The Additional District Judge-VI, Quetta and 3 others2021 YLR 743 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-29Read full judgment →
• Tata Motors Ltd vs Antonio Paulo Vaz And Anr2021 SCInd 96 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-02-18Read full judgment →
• Tassaduq Hussain Shah vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 81 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-11
  retracted judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencemurdersentence enhancementcriminal appealjudicial cautionlife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction for murder, while the complainant sought sentence enhancement. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction. The Court held that a retracted judicial confession, if proven voluntary and truthful, is admissible and can form the sole basis for conviction, though corroboration is preferred. The Court found the prosecution's circumstantial evidence formed an unbroken chain linking the appellant to the crime. Regarding the sentence, the Court declined to enhance the life imprisonment to death, citing judicial caution where it remained unclear which specific act by the co-accused caused the death, and emphasizing that when doubt exists regarding the appropriate penalty, the lesser sentence is preferable to avoid potential miscarriage of justice. The conviction and sentence were maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession form the sole basis for a criminal conviction?
  • Is corroboration required for a retracted judicial confession to be admissible?
  • Should a sentence of life imprisonment be enhanced to death when it is unclear which co-accused caused the fatal injury?
  • What standard of proof is required for circumstantial evidence to sustain a murder conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Tasawar Hussain vs Deputy Commissioner District, Jhelum and others2021 SCMR 1367, 2021 SCP 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-08
  service matterabsence from dutyPEEDA Actdismissal from serviceremoval from serviceenhancement of penaltyregular inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition against his dismissal from service. The appellant, a Chowkidar in the Municipal Committee Pind Dadan Khan, remained absent from duty for twenty-three months without leave, during which a criminal case was registered against him and he absconded abroad. Following an inquiry, the competent authority imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service under Section 4(b)(vi) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, modifying the inquiry officer's recommendation of removal from service under Section 4(b)(v). The core legal questions involved whether a regular inquiry is required when absence is admitted, and whether the competent authority must assign reasons when enhancing a recommended penalty. The Supreme Court held that where absence from duty is admitted, a regular inquiry is unnecessary. However, the Court ruled that when a competent authority enhances a penalty from removal to dismissal, it is under a legal obligation to assign justiciable reasons. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the penalty from dismissal to removal from service.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a regular inquiry is required when absence from duty is admitted by an employee?
  • Is the competent authority bound to follow the recommendations made by an inquiry officer regarding the quantum of penalty?
  • Whether the competent authority is under a legal obligation to assign justiciable reasons when enhancing a recommended penalty?
  • What is the distinction in legal consequences between the penalty of removal from service and dismissal from service under the PEEDA Act, 2006?
  Read full judgment →
• Tarique and another vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 742 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-03
  honour killingcommon intentionocular evidencebenefit of doubtrelated witnessesmurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of two appellants, a father and son, for the murder of the son's wife. The trial court had convicted both under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of related eyewitnesses, the impact of delayed FIR registration, and the applicability of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court upheld the conviction of the husband, finding the ocular evidence corroborated by medical reports and the recovery of the weapon, while explicitly rejecting the 'honour killing' defense. However, the Court acquitted the father, holding that the prosecution failed to prove common intention. The Court established that mere presence at a crime scene, without an overt act or evidence of shared purpose, is insufficient for conviction under Section 34. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not invalidate their testimony if they appear truthful, and that delay in FIR registration is not fatal when adequately explained by the circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of an eyewitness to the deceased constitute sufficient grounds to discard their testimony?
  • Is a delay in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case when the delay is explained by the circumstances of the incident?
  • Can a conviction under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained against an accused when no specific overt act is attributed to them and the weapon they allegedly carried was not used?
  • Does a confession of murder in the name of honour provide a legal justification for the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Tarique Ali s/o Muhammad Yousif Jatoi vs The State2021 SHC 820 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-19
  criminal jail appealhostile witnessbenefit of doubtmurderanti-terrorismunlicensed weaponmedical evidenceocular testimonyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal assails the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder, terrorism, and arms offences under Sections 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and Section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act 2013, resulting in sentences of life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given that key eyewitnesses, including the complainant, turned hostile and exonerated the appellant during the trial, and whether corroborative evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt because the primary eyewitnesses retracted their statements, medical evidence conflicted with the weapon alleged, and recovery witnesses did not support the prosecution. The court laid down the principle that when ocular and recovery evidence crumbles and lacks independent corroboration, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the appellant's acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for a capital crime can be sustained when the primary eyewitnesses and the complainant turn hostile and exonerate the accused at trial?
  • Does medical evidence alone suffice to identify an accused or establish guilt in the absence of reliable and supportive ocular testimony?
  • Is the uncorroborated testimony of police officials sufficient to prove a criminal charge and recovery of a crime weapon when independent mashirs do not support the recovery?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case when witnesses deny the contents of their statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during their testimony before the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Wali & Ors vs Province of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 764 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-14Read full judgment →
• Tariq Shafi vs The State2021 MLD 589 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-12
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequecriminal breach of trustdishonestydormant accountmalice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, who was accused in an FIR registered under Sections 489-F and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances surrounding the alleged dishonoured cheques and the underlying financial transaction. The Court observed that the complainant's claim was dubious, noting that the cheques were drawn on a bank that had already been absorbed into another entity, and that the account in question was dormant rather than having insufficient funds. Furthermore, the Court found that the essential ingredient of dishonesty required for Section 489-F was missing, and the complainant's conduct suggested malice. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, holding that a case for such relief had been successfully established. The key principle laid down is that for an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the ingredient of dishonesty is a condition precedent, and where this is absent, the case for bail is strengthened.

  Questions settled

  • Is the ingredient of dishonesty a condition precedent for an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a cheque drawn on a dormant account be considered a dishonoured cheque for the purposes of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the trial court have the authority to cancel bail if the accused becomes an absconder after the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood vs The StatePLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 161, PLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 162, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 445, 2021 SCMR 471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-02
  murder appealsafe administration of criminal justicefractional relianceindependent corroborationeyewitness credibilityacquittalbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal appeal by leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment of the High Court, which upheld the appellant's conviction for homicide and murderous assault while altering the death penalty to life imprisonment, following the acquittal of five co-accused. The primary legal issue was whether fractional reliance on ocular testimony disbelieved regarding the majority of the accused could safely sustain a solitary conviction without independent corroboration. The Supreme Court observed that the ocular evidence was inherently flawed, noting the implausibility of the eyewitnesses miraculously escaping point-blank gunfire, the lack of recovered casings, unsupportive forensic reports, and the discrediting of witnesses concerning their own assailants. The Court held that placing fractional reliance on such discredited testimony poses a serious risk of error and violates the principles of safe administration of criminal justice. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can the conviction of a solitary accused be safely sustained upon fractional reliance on ocular evidence that has been disbelieved regarding multiple co-accused?
  • Whether independent corroboration is required to uphold a conviction when ocular testimony is rejected qua the majority of co-accused?
  • What is the evidential effect of eyewitnesses miraculously escaping point-blank gunfire without supporting physical or forensic evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood etc vs Siraj ud Din etc2021 CLC 1120, 2021 LHC 380 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood Bukhari vs Government Of The Punjab, etc2021 PLJ Lahore 504 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-16
  promotion defermentselection postcompetitive advantagefair considerationspeaking reasonsservice tribunal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner challenging his repeated deferment for promotion from BS-18 to BS-19 by the department. The core legal question was whether consistent deferment of an officer for promotion to a selection post without providing concrete, comparative, and speaking reasons constitutes fair consideration. The Lahore High Court held that mere boilerplate assertions that an officer lacks a competitive advantage compared to peers do not suffice as valid reasons for deferment, especially when repeated without comparative analysis. The Court laid down the principle that consideration for promotion, even to a selection post, must be fair, transparent, and supported by speaking reasons that identify specific areas of deficiency compared to others, and any extraneous information used outside of PERs must be authorized by law. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner's early consideration by the Departmental Promotion Board with proper speaking reasons if adverse decisions are made.

  Questions settled

  • Whether consistent deferment for promotion without giving cogent and comparative reasons constitutes fair consideration?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal barred in cases of deferment of promotion under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974?
  • Can the department rely on information outside PERs for promotion consideration without legal backing?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood Aryani vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar & others2021 MLD 2035, 2021 PHC 104 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-21Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood alias Maqsood Ahmad vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1449 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-17
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtabetmentdelayed FIRpost-mortem delaymurderacquittalprosecution burden
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for abetment in a triple murder case under Sections 302(b), 109, 114, and 404 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the delayed FIR, the suspicious transposition of the appellant from an eye-witness to an accused after three months, and the lack of motive or recovery evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The court emphasized that the inordinate delay in reporting the crime and conducting post-mortem examinations indicated consultation and fabrication. Furthermore, the evidence against the appellant was deemed shaky and insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of doubt. The judgment reaffirms the axiomatic principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate delay in reporting a crime to the police without explanation undermine the veracity of the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can a conviction for abetment be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish a motive or produce solid evidence against the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Masood vs Sher Muhammad Din & Others2021 SHC 578 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-09Read full judgment →
• Tariq Masood Khan vs District Judge, Khanewal and 4 others2022 PLJ Lahore 364 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-26Read full judgment →
• Tariq Masood & another vs Province of Punjab, etc2021 [M] C L R 718 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-27Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood vs Vice-Chancellor, University Of The Punjab, Lahore and another2022 MLD 155 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-02
  university examinationquashment of resultlimitation periodnatural justicedue processadministrative lawvested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a letter issued by the University of the Punjab, which unilaterally quashed the petitioner's BA/B.Sc. examination result from 1991, nearly 24 years after the result was declared and the degree issued. The core legal question was whether the University possessed the authority to quash an examination result after such a significant lapse of time, and whether the impugned order complied with due process requirements. The Court held that the University's action was illegal and set aside the impugned letter. The ratio of the decision is that the University is bound by its own General Regulations, which impose a three-year limitation period for initiating proceedings to quash examination results. The Court established the principle that administrative bodies must act with vigilance and that the University cannot indefinitely reopen past results, especially when the result was previously verified by the institution itself. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an administrative order affecting a vested right must provide reasons, and the failure to do so violates the principles of natural justice and due process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the University of the Punjab have the authority to quash an examination result after the expiry of the three-year limitation period prescribed in its General Regulations?
  • Is an administrative order issued by a university valid if it fails to provide reasons for the cancellation of a student's degree or result?
  • Can a university initiate proceedings to quash a result decades after the result was declared and verified by the institution itself?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 1447 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-15
  trial in absentiafair trialdue processNational Accountability Ordinancevoid judgmentlimitation periodnatural justiceabsconding
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 31-A of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, where the appellant was tried and convicted in absentia. The core legal questions concerned whether the trial court could dispense with standard procedural requirements to convict an accused in absentia, whether statements recorded for proclamation under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, constitute valid evidence for conviction, and whether the limitation period applies to a void judgment. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, ruling that the trial court failed to record reasons for dispensing with established procedures, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial under Articles 9 and 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Furthermore, the Court clarified that proceedings to compel attendance cannot be conflated with trial evidence. Because the judgment was void ab initio, the Court held that the statutory bar of limitation did not apply. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted in absentia under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, without following the prescribed procedural requirements?
  • Can a statement of a process-server recorded for the purpose of proclamation under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be used as substantive evidence to convict an accused?
  • Does the statutory bar of limitation apply to an appeal filed against a judgment that is void ab initio?
  • Is an Accountability Court required to record reasons when dispensing with the procedural provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Hameed and 4 others vs Lahore Development Authority and others2921 PLJ Lahore 519 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-14Read full judgment →
• Tariq Ali vs The State2021 YLR 505 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-23
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtunnatural conduct of eye-witnessesdelay in post-mortemmedical conflictcriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Tariq Ali, for the murder of his ex-wife, Mst. Fozia Bibi, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The prosecution alleged that the appellant inflicted multiple knife blows on the deceased at a public park, witnessed by the complainant and his relative. The Lahore High Court evaluated the evidence and found significant flaws, including an unexplained forty-hour delay in conducting the post-mortem examination pointing toward a fabricated and ante-dated FIR, unnatural and improbable conduct of the alleged eye-witnesses who failed to intervene or rescue their close relative, material contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding blunt weapon injuries, and weak corroborative recovery from an open public place. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction and sentence, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in conducting a post-mortem examination casts serious doubt on the promptitude and veracity of the FIR?
  • Does the passive and unnatural conduct of close relative eye-witnesses who fail to intervene during an attack render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the ocular testimony is in direct conflict with the medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries?
  • Is a recovery of a weapon from an open, accessible public place sufficient to corroborate a weak prosecution case?
  • What is the legal effect of multiple lingering doubts and missing links in the prosecution's chain of evidence in a capital trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Ali and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 328 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-05
  murder convictiondeath sentence commutationocular accountinjured witnessescriminal appealmurder referencemedical evidenceextenuating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences handed down by the trial court for murder and attempted murder. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence, specifically the reliability of the ocular account, the validity of the motive, the impact of failed weapon recoveries, and the appropriateness of the death penalty. The Court upheld the convictions, finding the ocular account of the injured witnesses consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, despite the failure to prove the alleged motive or link the recovered weapons to the crime. However, the Court held that the death sentence was not justified given the absence of a proven motive, the failure of weapon recovery, and the fact that the appellant fired only a single shot. Consequently, the Court converted the death sentence to life imprisonment, maintaining the other convictions. The judgment establishes that while a consistent ocular account can sustain a conviction even without motive or weapon recovery, the absence of aggravating factors like repeated firing or proven motive constitutes extenuating circumstances justifying the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prove a motive or recover a weapon necessarily invalidate a conviction based on consistent ocular testimony?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when the accused fired only a single shot and the motive remains unproven?
  • Are injured witnesses considered reliable witnesses in criminal trials?
  • Is the delay in reporting a crime to the police fatal to the prosecution's case when the priority was medical treatment?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Ahmed and others vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and others2021 SCMR 871 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-14
  bailNational Accountability Bureauembezzlementcondition of depositSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions assailing orders of the High Court of Sindh at Sukkur granting anticipatory and post-arrest bails to accused individuals in various National Accountability Bureau references subject to the condition of depositing allegedly embezzled amounts. The core legal question concerns the legality of imposing such financial deposit conditions for bail and the propriety of wholesale treatment of bail petitions. The Supreme Court held that granting bail in an omnibus manner without regard to distinct facts, circumstances, and applicable legal regimes is impermissible, and that imposing a condition to deposit embezzled amounts is alien to law. The Court set aside the impugned orders, converted the petitions into appeals, and remitted the bail petitions back to the High Court for fresh decision on their own merits in accordance with settled principles.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court can make the grant of bail conditional upon the deposit of allegedly embezzled amounts?
  • Is the wholesale treatment of bail petitions in an omnibus manner without regard to distinct facts and circumstances permissible?
  • What is the proper course of action when bail petitions are disposed of by the High Court without considering the distinct facts and applicable legal regimes of each case?
  Read full judgment →
• Taqveem Shah vs Government Of Balochistan and 2 others2021 CLC 985 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-23Read full judgment →
• Taqi Muhammad vs Province of Sindh and 07 others2021 SHC 544 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-03Read full judgment →
• Tanvir Ahmed vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1344 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-03
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailleave to appealqatl-i-amdappellate discretioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 426(2-B) and Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail pending the disposal of an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioner, previously convicted for qatl-i-amd under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, had his death sentence converted to life imprisonment by the High Court. The Supreme Court subsequently granted leave to appeal, noting significant contentions regarding the prosecution's case, including the non-production of an injured witness, unexplained delays in the FIR and postmortem, and the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence. The Court held that while the grant of leave to appeal does not automatically entitle a convict to bail, the High Court possesses the discretion under Section 426(2-B), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to suspend a sentence in suitable cases. Given the substantial grounds for appeal and the petitioner's prolonged incarceration, the Court suspended the sentence and granted bail pending the final decision of the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court automatically entitle a convict to the suspension of their sentence?
  • Can the High Court suspend a sentence under Section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 pending an appeal before the Supreme Court?
  • Is the prolonged incarceration of a petitioner a relevant factor for the suspension of sentence pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Ahmed Rajput vs United Bank Limited through President and 42021 PLJ Tr.C. (NIRC) 105 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2021-01-18
  workmangrievance petitiondismissal from servicebank employeemaintainabilitydepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged his dismissal from service by the respondent bank through a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Act, 2002. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner fell within the definition of a workman to maintain the petition and whether his dismissal following a departmental inquiry was lawful. The National Industrial Relations Commission held that the petitioner, serving as Officer Grade-II and performing supervisory and managerial duties as second-in-command at the branch, did not qualify as a workman. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as non-maintainable. The key principle laid down is that bank officers performing supervisory and operational management functions, rather than purely manual or clerical duties, do not fall within the definition of a workman under labor laws and cannot maintain a grievance petition before the labor forum.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Officer Grade-II performing supervisory duties in a bank falls within the definition of a workman?
  • Is a grievance petition filed by a non-workman employee maintainable under the Industrial Relations Act?
  • Whether a charge-sheet issued upon the discovery of financial irregularities through an audit report is considered time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Tallahasee Resources Incorporated through Mrs. Maleeha Waheed Malik2021 CLC 423 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-14Read full judgment →
• Talib Husssa in Chachar vs The State2021 SHC 850 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-12
  post-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustfurther inquiryanti-corruptionmisappropriation of propertyprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Talib Hussain Chachar, who was charged under Section 409 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, regarding the alleged misappropriation of wheat. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the circumstances of his arrest and the evidentiary material available at the pre-trial stage. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail, noting that the essential ingredients of Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860—specifically entrustment and dishonest misappropriation—were not prima facie established merely by the applicant's presence as a watchman at the scene. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the 18-19 day delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that the investigation was complete, rendering further custody unnecessary. The key principle laid down is that while deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage, the Court must conduct a tentative assessment to determine if the ingredients of the offense are prima facie met, and where they are lacking, bail should be granted as a rule rather than an exception.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of an alleged crime as a watchman satisfy the ingredients of Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception in cases involving the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the investigation is complete?
  • Can bail be granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the essential ingredients of the charged offense are not prima facie established?
  Read full judgment →
• Talat Mehmood & another vs Bahria University, Karachi campus and 062021 SHC 828 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-16
  contractual employmentmaster and servantregularizationconstitutional petitionmaintainabilityuniversity employeetermination of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, appointed on a contract basis as Security Incharge and Correspondence Assistant at Bahria University Karachi Campus, challenged their relieving orders through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking a declaration of permanent status and continuation in service till superannuation. The core legal question was whether contractual employees of a university governed by the principle of Master and Servant can claim regularization or challenge their lawful relieving upon contract expiry under writ jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that contractual employees have no vested right to regularization or permanent status, and their services governed by Master and Servant principles lawfully terminate upon the expiry of their contract. The court laid down the principle that High Courts cannot issue directions for regularization or permanent continuance of service unless the initial appointment was made through an open competitive process against a sanctioned post, and contractual employees are not entitled to show-cause notices or formal inquiries upon the natural expiration or conclusion of their agreed tenure.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable for the regularization of contractual employees?
  • Does a contractual employee acquire a vested right to permanent retention or superannuation after serving for several years?
  • Whether the principle of Master and Servant applies to employment disputes involving Bahria University?
  • Are contractual employees entitled to a formal inquiry and show-cause notice prior to being relieved upon the expiration of their contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Talal Korejo vs The State2021 SHC 1344 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-21
  suspension of sentencenarcotics possessionbail pending appealcriminal appealshort sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, wherein the appellant was found guilty of possessing 140 grams of Charas and sentenced to one year and three months of rigorous imprisonment under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Pending the final adjudication of the appeal, the appellant filed an application seeking the suspension of his sentence and release on bail. The core legal question before the Court was whether, given the relatively short duration of the sentence and the fact that the appellant remained on bail throughout the trial, the sentence should be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. The Court, upon considering the arguments and the record, held that the sentence should be suspended. Consequently, the Court admitted the appellant to bail, subject to the furnishing of surety and a personal recognizance bond. The decision reinforces the principle that where a sentence is short and the appeal is unlikely to be heard immediately, the appellate court may exercise its discretion to suspend the sentence and grant bail to the convict, provided the appellant was on bail during the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended pending the hearing of a criminal appeal if the sentence awarded is short?
  • Is the fact that an appellant remained on bail during the trial a relevant factor for granting bail pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad, Chief Internal Auditor, OGDCL, etc vs Oil and Gas2021 IHC 58, 2022 [M] CLR 1442, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 712 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-19
  antedated promotionsservice regulationsjudicial reviewtrichotomy of powersdiscretionary powerspublic sector employeesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court addressed multiple writ petitions filed by employees of the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL) seeking antedated promotions based on previous apex court judgments, particularly Zulfiqar-ul-Husnain and Abid Kamal. The core legal question was whether OGDCL employees are entitled to automatic antedated promotions solely upon completing five years of service in a grade, bypassing the regular promotion criteria, merit, fitness, and vacancy requirements outlined in the Oil and Gas Development Corporation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1994. The court dismissed the petitions, holding that employees do not possess a vested right to automatic or antedated promotions based purely on length of service. The ratio laid down is that promotion decisions involve subjective evaluations of competence and adherence to statutory service regulations, which fall within the executive domain of the employer and policy-making bodies. Consequently, constitutional courts will not interfere or substitute their own judgment through judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 unless there is established illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether OGDCL employees are entitled to automatic antedated promotions solely upon the completion of five years of service in a particular grade?
  • Does a constitutional court have the authority under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to substitute its own evaluation of an employee's merit and fitness for that of the departmental promotion committee?
  • Are promotion criteria and eligibility rules framed under service regulations matters of executive policy that warrant judicial restraint?
  • Whether an employee can claim antedated promotions in disregard of statutory service regulations and the requirement of an available vacancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad and others vs Fateh Chand and others2021 SHC 1182 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
• Taimoor vs The State2021 YLR 808 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-15
  rapehostile witnessbenefit of doubtcriminal appealcorroborationocular evidencedelayed FIRacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction for rape under Section 376(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the complainant's hostile testimony and significant evidentiary gaps. The Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. It emphasized that while the testimony of a hostile witness is not entirely inadmissible, it requires strong, independent corroboration, which was absent here. The Court noted fatal contradictions in the ocular evidence, an unexplained two-day delay in lodging the FIR, and the lack of conclusive forensic evidence, such as DNA or semen matching, to link the appellant to the crime. Furthermore, the failure to examine disinterested witnesses led to an adverse inference under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right when the prosecution's case is riddled with discrepancies and lacunas.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a hostile witness be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Does an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging an FIR tarnish the authenticity of the prosecution's case?
  • Is the detection of human sperm on a vaginal swab sufficient to prove rape without DNA or semen matching?
  • What is the effect of failing to examine disinterested witnesses when they are available?
  Read full judgment →
• Taimoor vs Muhammad Yawar Ubaid and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1712 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-16
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausecheatingforgeryimpersonationbail rule and exception
  Summary & questions settled

  The accused-petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 1 dated 01.01.2021 registered under Sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gumbat, District Kohat, relating to the alleged sale of a non-custom paid vehicle with forged documents and impersonation. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail when the charged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that since the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the general rule and its refusal is an exception, and the respondent failed to establish any exceptional circumstances. The petition was accordingly allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing appropriate surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that in criminal cases where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused 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?
  • Does the grant of bail become the rule and refusal an exception in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Taimoor alias Qazi and others vs The State through Advocate General2021 YLR 819 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-04-30
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidencedeath sentencemurderchain of circumstancesinvestigation lapsesmedical evidencerecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for offences including murder under the Azad Penal Code. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, recoveries of blood-stained clothes, a weapon of offence, and cell phones on the pointation of the main accused, as well as medical and chemical examiner reports. The core legal questions involved whether a conviction for murder and the imposition of a death sentence can be legally sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, and whether procedural irregularities by the investigating agency vitiate the trial. The High Court held that where an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence conclusively connects the accused to the crime and excludes all hypotheses of innocence, a conviction and death sentence can be properly maintained. The court laid down the principle that mere technical lapses or delays in investigation by the police do not demolish a prosecution case if the substantive guilt is proved through cogent evidence, and that an accused must offer a plausible explanation under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order where facts are within his exclusive knowledge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction and death sentence can be legally maintained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is complete and unbroken?
  • Does a delay in dispatching recovered items to the chemical examiner or forensic laboratory vitiate the prosecution case in the absence of proven malice or substitution?
  • Whether technical lapses and procedural irregularities committed during the course of police investigation are sufficient to demolish an otherwise proved prosecution case?
  • What is the effect of an accused failing to offer a plausible explanation regarding his presence with the deceased under Article 21 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Taimoor Ahmad vs Judge Family Court, Sahiwal etc2021 [M] C L R 1462 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-28Read full judgment →
• Tahsinullah vs Mst. Parveen (deceased) through her L.Rs and others.2021 SCP 410, 2022 SCMR 346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-25
  gift mutationtamleekIslamic law of inheritancecondonation of delayco-owners possessionburden of proofvalid gift requisites
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a challenge to a High Court revision judgment that set aside an appellate court decree and restored the trial court's decision invalidating a gift mutation (tamleek) in favour of the appellant. The appellant claimed that his late father gifted him land via mutation attested on 4 June 1983; however, the sisters successfully challenged the gift via a civil suit. The Supreme Court observed that the appeal was time-barred despite applying the COVID-19 lockdown circular extension. On examining the merits, the Supreme Court noted that the acceptance of the gift was missing from the mutation record, and the alleged gift was made on the exact date of the father's death, rendering it highly suspect. The Court affirmed that the burden to prove a valid gift lay upon the beneficiary, which he failed to discharge. Upon a Muslim's death, legal heirs inherit their shares under Islamic Shari'ah automatically, and possession by one co-owner is deemed possession for all. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on merits and limitation with costs, directing the District Collector to implement the trial court decree and hand over possession to the legal heirs within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of establishing a valid gift rest upon the beneficiary claiming under the gift mutation?
  • Does the possession of one co-owner/co-heir in inherited property constitute deemed legal possession for all co-heirs?
  • Can a gift mutation lacking recorded acceptance and allegedly executed on the day of the donor's death be sustained in law without strict proof?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahsin Ullah vs The Chairman Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Public Service2021 PHC 66 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tahsin Ullah vs Chairman Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Public Service Commission2021 PLC (C.S.) 1611 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-14
  public service commissionwaiting list policynon-joining of selecteerecruitment policyconstitutional petitionsubject specialist appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission's refusal to recommend him for the post of Subject Specialist (Statistic) despite being at the top of the waiting list following the non-joining of a previously selected candidate. The core legal question was whether the Commission was obligated to recommend the next candidate on the merit list when a selectee failed to join, specifically considering the government's policy on waiting lists. The Court held that the Commission's refusal was illegal, finding that the selectee in question had not actually joined the service, as evidenced by the appointing department's clarification that he had not undergone the mandatory medical examination or character verification. The Court affirmed that under the prevailing recruitment policy, the Commission is required to maintain a waiting list for three months or until the commencement of pre-service training, allowing for the recommendation of the next eligible candidate in the event of a non-joiner. Consequently, the Court directed the Commission to recommend the petitioner for the post.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Public Service Commission required to recommend the next candidate on the merit list if a selected candidate fails to join the service?
  • Does the failure of a candidate to undergo mandatory medical examination and character verification constitute a non-joining for the purpose of the waiting list policy?
  • What is the permissible duration for maintaining a waiting list for recruitment under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahira Naseem vs Arshad Mehmood and othersPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 936, 2021 P Cr. L J 682 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-05
  office objectionsadministrative jurisdictionaccess to justicerestoration of appealministerial proceedingsappeal against acquittalHigh Court Rules and Orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against acquittal filed by the complainant, which was consigned to the record by an Administrative Judge due to non-compliance with office objections regarding missing documents. The core legal question is whether proceedings before an Administrative Judge concerning office objections are judicial or administrative, and whether such orders can be recalled or restored. The Court held that proceedings regarding office objections are ministerial and administrative in nature, not judicial. Consequently, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908, do not apply to these proceedings. The Court emphasized that the Deputy Registrar must specify a time for compliance with objections, and failure to do so, or to provide a fair opportunity, renders the dismissal unsustainable. Applying Sections 21 and 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1857, the Court ruled that it possesses the inherent power to recall or restore administrative orders to prevent the denial of access to justice based on technicalities. The application for restoration was allowed, and the matter was remanded for further administrative processing.

  Questions settled

  • Are proceedings before an Administrative Judge regarding office objections judicial or administrative in nature?
  • Does the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to administrative proceedings concerning office objections?
  • Can an Administrative Judge recall or restore an order passed on the administrative side?
  • Is the Deputy Registrar required to specify a time limit when raising office objections on a memorandum of appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahira Hanif vs Province of Sindh and 04 others2021 SHC 442 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-03
  deputationabsorptioncivil servantvested rightrecruitment rulesgood governancerepatriation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a lecturer on deputation, sought absorption into the Sindh Government service after being removed from her parent department. The core legal question was whether a civil servant on deputation possesses a vested right to continue on deputation or to be permanently absorbed into the borrowing department. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that deputation is merely a temporary administrative arrangement between borrowing and lending authorities, not a pathway to permanent absorption. The court affirmed that no civil servant has a vested right to remain on deputation indefinitely or to be absorbed without strictly adhering to prescribed recruitment rules and codal formalities. Emphasizing the principles of good governance and merit-based recruitment, the court ruled that appointments to public offices must be made through competitive processes. Furthermore, the court determined that a deputationist removed from service by their parent department cannot continue serving on deputation. The judgment reinforces that state authority must be exercised fairly, and any deviation from statutory selection procedures undermines the principles of equal opportunity and public service.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant on deputation have a vested right to be permanently absorbed into the borrowing department?
  • Can a civil servant continue on deputation after being removed from service by their parent department?
  • Is deputation a valid mechanism for permanent appointment to a government post without following recruitment rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Naqash vs The State etc2021 LHC 1896 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-08
  narcotics controlsafe custody of case propertychain of custodyadmissibility of documentsprimary evidencepolice registercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of sixteen kilograms of heroin. The core legal questions involved the establishment of safe custody of the recovered narcotics, the admissibility and proof of police register entries, and the evaluation of minor discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence, holding that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that official records such as police registers must be duly proved through proper legal processes and primary evidence rather than improper admission, and that minor gaps in the chain of custody do not vitiate the prosecution's case when the foundational recovery is solidly established by credible witness testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor gaps in the chain of safe custody of narcotics samples vitiate the prosecution's case when not challenged through proper cross-examination?
  • How must police registers and official documents be formally proved and admitted into evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does the improper admission of uncertified or unproved police register entries render them inadmissible as evidence?
  • What is the extent of the judge's power to summon and examine documents or put questions under Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Naqash vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 1334 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-08
  narcotics possessionchain of custodyQanun-e-Shahadat Orderpolice registerevidentiary proofcriminal appealpublic documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 16 kilograms of heroin. The appellant contested the conviction, primarily alleging a broken chain of custody regarding the seized narcotics and discrepancies in the police station's Register No. 19. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the recovery and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding the evidentiary value of police records, the Court established that documents like Register No. 19 must be formally proved as primary evidence in accordance with the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court emphasized that simply producing a register without certification or proper authentication constitutes an improper admission of evidence. Furthermore, the Court clarified that when police claim privilege over official records, the court must first determine the validity of such privilege in camera before allowing the document to be proved through primary evidence. The judgment affirms that procedural deficiencies in record-keeping, if not properly challenged or proven, do not automatically vitiate the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Is a police register admissible as evidence if it is produced in court without formal proof or certification?
  • What is the procedure for a court to determine if a police document is privileged?
  • Does a discrepancy in the chain of custody of narcotics automatically invalidate a conviction if the defense fails to challenge it through cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mehmood vs IESCO through its Chief Executive Officer and others2021 IHC 330 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-09Read full judgment →
• Tahir Hussain Khan vs Pirzada Muhammad Jahangir Bhutta, etc2021 KLR Civil Cases 192 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-31Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ayub s/o Muhammad Ayub Khan, caste Banis Rajput r/o Chowki2021 SC AJK 28, 2021 PSC 1634 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Tahir and 4 others vs Hafeez-Ur-Rehman and 3 others2021 MLD 401 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-06Read full judgment →
• Tahir Abbas vs The State and 2 others2021 P Cr. L J 504 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-21
  criminal revisionsupplementary statementexhibition of documentexamination-in-chiefFIRstatement under section 161 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition is directed against the order of the Anti-Terrorism Court whereby the supplementary statement of the complainant was exhibited during his examination-in-chief as PW-1. The core legal question is whether a supplementary statement of a complainant can be independently exhibited as a substantive piece of evidence or document during trial. The Lahore High Court held that once a crime report is lodged under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, any subsequent information gathered and placed before the Investigating Officer constitutes a statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which can be used by the defence for contradiction under section 162, and there is no provision in criminal law for the independent exhibition of such a supplementary statement. The court set aside the impugned order, laying down the principle that subsequent statements of a complainant cannot be independently exhibited during trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a supplementary statement of a complainant can be independently exhibited during trial?
  • How should information gathered by a complainant at a stage subsequent to the lodging of an FIR be treated under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • For what purpose can a subsequent statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used by the defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Tabros Pharma (Private) Limited through Duly authorized representative vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Health Services, Regulation and Coordination, Islamabad and 3 others2021 PLD Sindh 489 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-19Read full judgment →
• T.P. Associate 01-Tech Town through Sole Proprietor vs Province Of Punjab2021 CLC 921 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
• Syeda Tahira Begum, etc vs Malik Khalid Pervaiz, etc2021 PLJ Lahore 523 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-25Read full judgment →
• Syeda Sumera Andleeb vs The State and another2021 SCP 204, 2021 SCMR 1227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-07
  post-arrest baildishonored chequejoint accountprohibitory clausehabitual offendercriminal liabilitywoman accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner, who was accused in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) regarding a dishonored cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a female co-account holder, was entitled to bail despite allegations of habitual offending and the dishonoring of a cheque issued from a joint account. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower courts' orders and granting bail. The Court held that the offence under Section 489-F PPC does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Furthermore, the Court established the principle that the mere registration of multiple criminal cases against an accused is insufficient to deprive them of their liberty if they are otherwise entitled to bail. Additionally, the Court emphasized that the petitioner's status as a woman with minor children, combined with the non-prohibitory nature of the offence, warranted the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere registration of multiple criminal cases against an accused person constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  • Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Is a co-account holder entitled to bail when the primary accused is a fugitive from law and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Syeda Shakira Raza w/o Ghulam Raza vs N/A2021 SHC 498 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-16Read full judgment →
• Syeda Humaira Sultana vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and 3 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 1074 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-08
  FATA mergerconstitutional amendmentpublic office successiontermination of serviceeducational institution regulationwrit jurisdictionadministrative authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three consolidated writ petitions challenging the authority of the Deputy Commissioner, Bajaur, to terminate the services of a school principal and initiate recruitment for school staff. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Commissioner, as a successor to the former Political Agent, possessed the legal authority to manage the affairs of Bajaur Public School, including personnel decisions, following the merger of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner lacked such authority, as the office of the Political Agent ceased to exist upon the repeal of Article 247 of the Constitution and the 25th Constitutional Amendment. The Court ruled that succession to public office requires explicit statutory authorization, which was absent here. Consequently, the termination was declared illegal, and the recruitment process was set aside. The Court mandated the Provincial Government to establish a proper legal framework for these educational institutions within three months, emphasizing the state's constitutional obligation under Article 25-A to provide education and regulate such schools effectively.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Deputy Commissioner of a district automatically succeed to the powers and functions of the former Political Agent in FATA post-merger?
  • Can a public official claim succession to a public office without an affirmative law or rule providing for such devolution?
  • Does the repeal of Article 247 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 terminate the regulatory framework previously governing Model Schools in FATA?
  • Is the Provincial Government constitutionally obligated under Article 25-A to provide a legal framework for educational institutions previously governed by FATA-specific regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zaman Shah and others vs The State2021 MLD 2106 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-22
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailprohibitory clausecounter-FIRland disputetentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two bail applications: one for pre-arrest bail and one for post-arrest bail, arising from the same FIR regarding a property dispute. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail given the existence of a counter-FIR, the nature of the injuries, and the fact that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that since the injuries sustained were punishable by less than seven years and did not fall within the prohibitory clause, and because the complainant party had concealed injuries sustained by the accused party (as evidenced by a counter-FIR), the accused were entitled to bail. The Court emphasized that in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause, bail should not be refused on flimsy grounds, and that determining the aggressor in a mutual conflict requires evidence to be recorded at trial. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail and granted post-arrest bail to the respective applicants.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a counter-FIR regarding the same incident impact the grant of bail?
  • Should bail be refused in cases where the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of deciding a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zainuddin vs Messrs Continental Limited, Karachi and 2 others2021 YLR 1738 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahoor-Ul-Hassan Shah vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 886 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-16
  pre-arrest baildishonored chequehabitual offendercriminal recordfinancial crimebail cancellationmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for confirmation of ad interim pre-arrest bail in a case involving charges under Sections 489-F and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from the dishonor of cheques issued by the accused. The core legal question was whether the applicant, a habitual offender with a history of similar criminal conduct, was entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate mala fide on the part of the complainant or the investigation agency. Furthermore, the applicant's conduct during the proceedings—specifically fleeing the courtroom upon the disclosure of his criminal record—demonstrated a misuse of the court's concession. The court emphasized that the issuance of dishonored cheques constitutes a severe financial harm to victims and their families. Consequently, the court recalled the ad interim pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that bail is a discretionary relief that should be denied to habitual offenders who suppress vital information regarding their criminal history and fail to establish mala fide against the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be cancelled if the accused is found to be a habitual offender with a history of similar criminal conduct?
  • Is the suppression of vital information regarding previous criminal cases a valid ground for refusing or recalling pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the dishonoring of cheques, when part of a pattern of conduct, justify the denial of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahir Shah and another vs Habibullah alias Sabo and others2021 YLR 2239 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-18
  criminal acquittal appealbenefit of doubtdelay in FIRcontradictory statementsabductionconfessional statementdouble presumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under sections 365, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the credibility of contradictory prosecution evidence, the effect of an unexplained 25-hour delay in lodging the FIR, and whether the trial court rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, noting severe contradictions among prosecution witnesses, reliance on hearsay evidence, failure to examine crucial supporting witnesses, and material discrepancies between the alleged abductee's court statement and his confessional statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court affirmed that an order of acquittal carries double innocence and cannot be interfered with unless found perverse or arbitrary. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of 25 hours in lodging the FIR renders the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Can an acquittal judgment be interfered with when the prosecution fails to produce central corroborative witnesses?
  • Does a material contradiction between the court statement and the confessional statement of the alleged victim destroy the prosecution's case?
  • What is the evidentiary threshold required to interfere with an order of acquittal which carries a double presumption of innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zafar Ali Shah vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2021 IHC 240 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice & 5 others2021 [M] C L R 512, 2021 PLD Islamabad 194, 2021 KLR Civil Cases 101 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Yasir Hassan vs Home Secretary etc2021 PLJ Lahore 593, 2021 LHC 581, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 45, PLD 2021 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Yaseen Shah vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1455 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-02-14
  quashment of FIRinherent jurisdictionabscondercriminal procedurecapital punishmenttrial court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the quashment of an FIR registered under sections 302, 147, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with pending proceedings before the Sessions Judge, contending that a co-accused had been acquitted and his case stood on the same footing. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings when the challan has been submitted, the petitioner is a proclaimed absconder, and the trial court has not yet examined the matter. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that inherent powers under section 561-A should not ordinarily be invoked as an alternative or additional remedy to bypass the trial court, especially in capital cases where the prosecution must be afforded an opportunity to produce evidence. The key principle laid down is that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is preserved to meet lacunae where no other remedy exists and should not be utilized to interrupt the ordinary course of criminal procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings before the petitioner has approached the trial court?
  • Can the inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used as an alternative or additional remedy to interrupt the ordinary course of criminal procedure?
  • Should an FIR involving capital offences be quashed on the ground that a co-accused has been acquitted, without allowing the prosecution an opportunity to produce evidence at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Waseem Saqlain Gillani vs Ex-Officio Justice Of Peace, etc2021 PLJ Lahore 638 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Waqar Haider vs The State through Prosecutor General Sindh2021 MLD 997 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-31
  pre-arrest baildishonour of chequepolice coercionulterior motivefurther inquiryterritorial jurisdictioncriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the alleged dishonour of a cheque. The core legal question was whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail, specifically regarding allegations of police coercion and ulterior motives in the registration of the First Information Report. The Court observed that the cheque in question was allegedly issued under duress while the applicant was in police custody regarding a previous, subsequently cancelled, First Information Report. Furthermore, the Court noted that the complainant's haste in lodging the current case, despite the cancellation of the previous one for lack of territorial jurisdiction, cast doubt on the voluntary nature of the cheque's issuance. Consequently, the Court held that the case required further inquiry and confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where the circumstances surrounding the issuance of a cheque, such as potential police pressure or duress, create reasonable doubt, a case for further inquiry is established, justifying the grant of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a cheque under police pressure or duress constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a case for further inquiry be established when the circumstances surrounding the issuance of a cheque are disputed?
  • Is a trial court empowered to cancel bail and initiate proceedings against a surety without referring the matter back to the High Court if the accused becomes a fugitive?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Tanveer Hyder Zaidi vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 SHC 948 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Tahwer Hussain Rizvi vs Syed Javed Ali Rizvi2021 [M] C L R 1352, 2021 KLR Civil Cases 354, 2022 CLC 1196 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Sheeran Ali and others vs The State2021 M LD 1753 · Sindh High Court
  criminal appealattempted murderassault on public servantanti-terrorism actbenefit of doubtillegal arms possessionpolice evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions rendered by an Anti-Terrorism Court for offenses involving assault on public servants, attempted murder, and illegal arms possession. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution proved the charge of attempted murder under Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, whether the incident fell within the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and whether the convictions for assaulting a public servant and illegal arms possession were sustainable. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the intent to murder, as the limited, long-range firing appeared intended to facilitate the appellants' escape rather than cause death, thus acquitting them of the Section 324 charge. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 was inapplicable, as the incident lacked the requisite design or intent to cause terror. However, the Court upheld the convictions under Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 23(1)(a), Sindh Arms Act 2013, establishing that police evidence is credible in the absence of proven enmity and that the recovery of weapons and on-the-spot arrest provided sufficient corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Does firing shots from a long distance during an escape attempt necessarily constitute an attempt to commit murder under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 applicable to an incident involving a shootout between police and suspects where there is no specific design or intent to cause terror?
  • Can the testimony of police officials be accepted as credible evidence in a criminal trial in the absence of proven enmity between the police and the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shahin Shah vs The Chief Secretary, Government of Khyber2021 PLC (C.S.) 1589, 2021 PHC 114 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-23
  Audit and Accounts Allowancereasonable classificationintelligible differentiaequal protection of lawdiscriminationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, sought directions for the respondents to issue a notification granting the petitioner, a Deputy Director (Finance & Accounts) in the Local Government & Rural Development Department, the Account and Audit Allowance at 20% of his basic pay, mirroring the allowance granted to employees of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Treasury Service. The core legal question was whether denying the said allowance to an employee serving in a different department, despite similar job functions, violates the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 4 and 25. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the restriction of the allowance specifically to the Treasury Service constitutes a valid and reasonable classification based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved, and does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination. The key principle laid down is that the guarantee of equal protection does not forbid reasonable classification of persons or groups based on intelligible differentia, and identical treatment in unequal circumstances is not mandated by law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the restriction of a specific departmental allowance to a particular service group constitutes unconstitutional discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • What are the essential conditions for a classification to pass the test of permissible classification under the equal protection clause?
  • Does identical treatment in unequal circumstances amount to inequality under Pakistani constitutional law?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shahan Shah alias Syed Nasrullah Shah through Legal Heirs vs Syed2021 MLD 531 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
• Syed Sajid Hussain vs Ex-Officio Justice Of Peace/Additional Sessions2022 YLR 112 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Saeed Hussain Shah Humayun vs Mst. Asima Saeed etc2021 MLD 1027, 2021 [M] C L R 152 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-09Read full judgment →