Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Suhaila Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan & 03 others2021 SHC 432 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-26Read full judgment →
- Suhail Kamal and others vs The State2018 MLD 1102, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 854 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2018-01-31Read full judgment →
- Suhail Hussain vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Election2021 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 99 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a government servant, challenged the imposition of a major penalty (reduction to a lower post) for alleged misconduct involving the tampering of election documents (Forms-45). The Authorized Officer had dispensed with a regular inquiry, relying solely on a fact-finding report under the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. The Federal Service Tribunal found that the fact-finding report relied on mere inferences and stressed behavior rather than concrete evidence to fix responsibility on the appellant. The Tribunal held that dispensing with a regular inquiry based on such weak, inconclusive material constituted a colorable exercise of power. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the competent authority failed to provide a show cause notice or an opportunity for a personal hearing before imposing the major penalty, and the appellate authority similarly denied a personal hearing. Citing the principle of audi alteram partem, the Tribunal ruled that the failure to afford a hearing in a case involving a major penalty caused serious prejudice. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, with liberty granted to the respondents to initiate a de novo inquiry.
Questions settled- Can a major penalty be imposed on a government servant based solely on a fact-finding report without holding a regular inquiry?
- Is it mandatory to afford a personal hearing to a government servant before imposing a major penalty?
- Does the failure to provide a personal hearing by the appellate authority violate the principle of audi alteram partem?
- Sughra Akram vs Federal Government Employees Housingfoundation2021 MLD 537 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-06Read full judgment →
- Sufian Ahmad vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 80 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the appellant was sentenced to death for the murder of two individuals. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant sought to compound the offence based on a compromise reached with the legal heirs of the deceased. The Lahore High Court referred the matter to the Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, to verify the genuineness and voluntary nature of the compromise and to ensure the protection of any minor heirs. The Sessions Judge reported that all legal heirs were major, had voluntarily entered into the compromise, and had waived their rights to Qisas and Diyat in the name of Allah Almighty. Finding no evidence of fasad-fil-arz and confirming the compromise was genuine and free from coercion, the Court allowed the compounding of the offence under Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, establishing that a voluntary compromise between major legal heirs in a murder case warrants acquittal.
Questions settled- Can a murder conviction be set aside on the basis of a compromise between the convict and the legal heirs of the deceased?
- What procedure must a High Court follow to verify a compromise in a criminal case involving death sentences?
- Does the absence of minor legal heirs and the lack of fasad-fil-arz allow for the compounding of an offence under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Subhan Ullah Khan son of Rozamin Khan vs The State through A.A.G2021 PHC 150 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, alongside a connected appeal against the acquittal of two co-accused. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of a solitary eyewitness, the impact of a hostile witness on the prosecution's case, and whether the circumstances warranted a reduction in the capital sentence. The Court held that the testimony of the solitary eyewitness was consistent, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, thereby sustaining the conviction. However, noting minor inconsistencies in the prosecution's case—specifically regarding the timing of the occurrence and the status of certain witnesses—the Court exercised its discretion to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment. The appeal against the acquittal of the co-accused was dismissed, affirming that they were entitled to the benefit of the doubt and the double presumption of innocence. The judgment reinforces the principle that while a single reliable witness can sustain a conviction, minor evidentiary inconsistencies may justify mitigating a capital sentence to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on the testimony of a solitary eyewitness?
- Are courts justified in ignoring the testimony of a witness declared hostile?
- Can minor inconsistencies in prosecution evidence justify the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- What is the standard for overturning an acquittal of co-accused in a criminal case?
- Subah Sadiq Malik and others vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and others2021 P Cr. L J 824 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses petitions filed by former employees of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) challenging the dismissal of their applications under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking acquittal in a reference concerning alleged misuse of authority under section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioners' actions in prosecuting a previous reference amounted to an illegal misuse of authority without 'good faith' and whether the statutory explanation added to section 9(a)(vi) applies retrospectively. The Islamabad High Court held that the accountability court failed to consider the protection of 'good faith' under section 36 of the Ordinance, the lack of allegations regarding personal gain or disproportionate assets, and the legal effect of the statutory explanation. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and directed the trial court to re-decide the acquittal applications. The key principle laid down is that a mere procedural irregularity or departure from internal Standard Operating Procedures does not constitute misuse of authority under section 9(a)(vi) without the essential ingredients of mens rea, illegal gain, or disproportionate assets.
Questions settled- Whether a public servant acting in the performance of official functions is protected from prosecution under section 36 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 when acts are done in good faith?
- Does a mere procedural irregularity or departure from internal Standard Operating Procedures constitute the offence of misuse of authority under section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 without proof of illegal gain or mens rea?
- Whether the explanation added to section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 regarding disproportionate assets and monetary benefit operates retrospectively?
- Can an accused person be acquitted under section 265K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at an advanced stage of trial if there is no possibility of conviction?
- Suba through L.Rs and others vs Mst. Halima Bibi etc2021 LHC 7961, 2022 [M] CLR 518, 2022 MLD 929 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-13Read full judgment →
- Stiefel Laboratories Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited vs Appellate Tribunal, Customs, Federal Excise And Sales Tax and others2021 PTD 699 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-30Read full judgment →
- State, through Ag General KP, Peshawar vs Sabz Ali Khan2021 P SC (Crl.) 817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed by the State against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which acquitted the respondent, Sabz Ali Khan, of charges related to the homicide of Sher Muhammad and a murderous assault on a witness. The respondent had originally been convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, by an Additional Sessions Judge and sentenced to death. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court erred in its acquittal by disregarding the ocular account of witnesses, including an injured witness, and by placing undue weight on trivial investigative lapses and peripheral issues. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the arguments regarding the strength of the prosecution's evidence and the alleged artificiality of the High Court's reasoning, determined that the contentions merited consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the entire evidence to prevent a miscarriage of justice and issued bailable warrants for the respondent's appearance. The principle established is that the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal when the High Court's acquittal appears to ignore substantial, consistent prosecution evidence in favor of inconsequential investigative defects.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to grant leave to appeal against a High Court acquittal when the prosecution alleges that the High Court ignored substantial ocular evidence?
- Can investigative lapses that are deemed inconsequential by the prosecution be sufficient grounds for a High Court to overturn a conviction based on direct witness testimony?
- Is the reappraisal of evidence by the Supreme Court warranted when the lower appellate court's judgment is alleged to be artificial and based on peripheral issues?
- State vs Shahzada Faheem Irshad etc2021 PLJ Cr.C (Lahore) 821 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed by the State under Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, which dismissed the State's application under Section 540 and Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for summoning a Forensic Scientist or Analyst to prove test protocols applied for chemical analysis reports. The core legal question was whether the prosecution can summon an analyst to explain test protocols when the chemical analysis reports are already per se admissible in evidence and were exhibited without objection from the defence. The Lahore High Court held that since the reports are per se admissible and no objection was raised at the time of exhibiting them, summoning the analyst would improperly allow the prosecution to rebuild its case and prejudice the accused. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution cannot be permitted to summon an analyst to clarify test protocols after reports have been admitted into evidence without objection.
Questions settled- Whether an analyst can be summoned to prove test protocols when chemical analysis reports are already per se admissible in evidence?
- Does allowing the prosecution to summon an analyst to explain test protocols without prior objection amount to rebuilding its case?
- Is a trial court justified in dismissing an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when chemical reports have been exhibited without objection?
- State through Prosecutor General Sindh and another vs Imran Sawati and others2021 P Cr. L J 915 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision arises from the dismissal of an application under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, by which the prosecution sought to examine Joint Investigation Team (JIT) members and introduce a JIT report at the final stage of a murder trial. The core legal question was whether the court should permit the prosecution to introduce new evidence at the conclusion of a trial to fill evidentiary gaps. The High Court upheld the trial court’s order, dismissing the revision applications. The court held that Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be utilized to fill lacunas in the prosecution’s case at the fag end of proceedings, as this prejudices the accused and violates the right to a fair trial under Article 10A, Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The court further established that a JIT report is equivalent to a report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, possessing no independent evidentiary value, and that judicial intervention to allow such late evidence undermines the court's role as a neutral umpire in an adversarial system.
Questions settled- Can the prosecution invoke Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to introduce new evidence at the final stage of a trial?
- Does a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) report possess independent evidentiary value in criminal proceedings?
- Is it permissible for a court to allow the prosecution to fill evidentiary lacunas at the conclusion of a trial?
- Does the failure to include witnesses in the initial calendar of witnesses preclude their examination under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Swati Ulhas Kerkar and Ors vs Sanjay Walavalkar and Ors2021 SCInd 68 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-02-10Read full judgment →
- State through Prosecutor General Accountability vs Adeel Butt and another2021 P Cr. L J 799 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed by the National Accountability Bureau against the judgment of the Accountability Court, which acquitted the respondents of corruption and corrupt practices charges. The core legal question was whether the prosecution produced sufficient evidence to establish charges of cheating, fraud, and criminal breach of trust against the respondents. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges, noting that the principal complainant admitted to receiving back his invested amount along with substantial profit, and the transaction involving the second respondent merely constituted a civil liability rather than a criminal offence. The court laid down the principle that mere civil liability cannot be converted into a criminal charge without proof of dishonest intention ab initio, and that benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused when prosecution evidence is scanty and inconsistent.
Questions settled- Whether the non-production of a material witness leaves the allegations against an accused unproven?
- Does the return of the principal amount along with profit negate a charge of cheating and fraud?
- Whether a financial transaction backed by a promissory note and an agreement constitutes a criminal offence or a civil liability?
- When is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt in a criminal trial?
- State through Director ANF vs Khurshid Khan2021 SCMR 1443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The State through Director ANF filed a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had acquitted the respondent of the charge under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The respondent was initially tried and convicted by a Special Judge for possessing 22.550 kg of cannabis intercepted in a cab. The core legal question revolved around whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction based on discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the defense testimony of the cab driver. The Supreme Court held that the admissions made by prosecution witnesses during cross-examination—specifically that no identifying papers were found on the contraband, it was not in the physical possession or lap of the accused, and no narcotics were recovered from his body search—coupled with the defense testimony of the driver denying the seizure, severely damaged the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the acquittal, laid down that material contradictions and admissions by prosecution witnesses can form a valid basis for sustaining an acquittal, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether contradictions and admissions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses can form a sufficient basis for upholding an acquittal in a narcotics case?
- Can the testimony of a co-accused or vehicle driver examined as a defense witness outweigh prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of contraband?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court decline to interfere with an acquittal judgment passed by the High Court?
- State through Director ANF vs Aurangzeb and another2021 SCMR 1552, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondents were arrested by the Anti-Narcotics Force with 18.600 kilograms of methamphetamine, consisting of 34,000 tablets, and were initially convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, receiving life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court, relying on the precedent set in Ameer Zaib v. State (PLD 2012 SC 383), deemed the forensic sampling deficient and reduced the convictions to Section 9(a) of the Act, resulting in sentences reduced to time served. The State challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court misapplied the sampling principle to the specific nature of the contraband. The State contended that because the drugs were in tablet form, the dispatch of 34 tablets from each lot constituted a representative sample, and that the High Court's interpretation undermined the legislative intent of the Act. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court correctly applied the sampling requirements in the context of psychotropic substances manufactured in tablet form.
Questions settled- Does the dispatch of 34 tablets from a lot of psychotropic substances constitute a representative sample for forensic analysis?
- Can the principle of sampling established in Ameer Zaib case be applied to contraband in tablet form?
- Did the High Court err in reducing sentences after maintaining convictions under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- State through Chairman National Accountability Bureau vs Syed2021 P Cr. L J 1282 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional Petition challenged an order by an Accountability Court that released an accused on a Personal Recognizance (PR) bond due to the National Accountability Bureau's (NAB) failure to file a Reference within the 90-day statutory period. The core legal question was whether an Accountability Court possesses the jurisdiction to order the release of an accused on a PR bond or grant bail in cases under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, particularly when a Reference is delayed. The High Court held that the Accountability Court lacks the jurisdiction to grant bail or order the release of an accused on a PR bond. The Court clarified that the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 is a special law, and provisions like Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are inapplicable to NAB proceedings. The Court affirmed that jurisdiction to grant bail in NAB cases rests exclusively with the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, and Accountability Courts cannot circumvent this by ordering release on PR bonds.
Questions settled- Does an Accountability Court have the jurisdiction to release an accused on a Personal Recognizance bond for failure to file a Reference within 90 days?
- Is Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to proceedings under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
- Which court has the exclusive jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused in a case under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
- State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs TahirPLJ2021 Cr.C. (FSC) 84 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Muhammad Shabran alias Shada and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (FSC) 93 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- State through Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Shahid Hussain2021 P Cr. L J 1274 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The State filed an appeal against the judgment of the Special Court/Sessions Judge, Kohat, whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted of a charge under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of Call Detail Record (CDR) data without independent verification from a cellular company, the integrity and safe transmission of narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), and the principles governing appeals against acquittal. The Peshawar High Court held that unverified CDR data lacking stamps, signatures, or official testimony from the cellular company cannot be relied upon as secondary evidence, that a delay in sending samples to the FSL combined with a failure to prove safe custody vitiates the chemical report, and that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence which will not be interfered with unless there is misreading or non-reading of evidence. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether Call Detail Record (CDR) data obtained from a cellular company can be relied upon as secondary evidence without the endorsement, stamp, signature, and testimony of an authorized representative of the company?
- Does a delay in transmitting narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory and failure to establish their safe custody vitiate the prosecution's case?
- What is the standard of proof and appraisal of evidence required when the State appeals against an order of acquittal?
- Can a narcotics conviction be sustained solely on unverified telephonic data and flawed chemical analysis reports?
- State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Sabz Ali Khan2021 SCMR 1525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court, whereby the respondent was acquitted of charges under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-i-Amd of the deceased and murderous assault. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction based on peripheral issues, stated durations of time, and lapses by the investigating officer, notwithstanding the ocular testimony of an injured witness and prompt registration of the crime report. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised merit consideration and granted leave to appeal to reappraise the entire evidence to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies, peripheral timelines, or investigative lapses do not outweigh a consistent ocular account supported by an injured witness, warranting a reappraisal of evidence by the apex court upon a petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in acquitting a respondent accused of homicide by relying on peripheral issues and trivial lapses in investigation?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to reappraise the entire evidence when the prosecution relies on an ocular account furnished by an injured witness?
- Do stated durations of time and minor discrepancies override the preponderance of evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused?
- State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Hakim Zada and others2021 SCMR 1485, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 712 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the Peshawar High Court for the Qatl-i-amd of his wife. The respondent had initially reported the death as suicide, but subsequent police investigation led to his trial and conviction for life imprisonment by the trial court. The High Court, however, set aside the conviction and acquitted the respondent, holding the death to be suicidal. The core legal question is whether the High Court failed to properly appreciate medical and circumstantial evidence, particularly the autopsy report indicating manual constriction of the neck by a ligature which ruled out suicide, in a case where the accused and the victim were residing under the same roof. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the acquittal warrants interference to secure the ends of justice, noting that the medical evidence escaped proper notice by the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court erred in appreciating the medical evidence regarding the cause of death?
- Does an autopsy report showing ligature marks around the neck sufficiently rule out suicide to warrant leave to appeal against acquittal?
- What is the extent of the obligation of an accused person to explain homicidal death occurring under the same roof?
- State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Amanat Khan and others2021 SCMR 1494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent for the daylight murder of Javed Ali Shah. The core legal question is whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction and sentence of death handed down by the trial court based on peripheral investigative flaws and a negative forensic report, despite consistent ocular testimony by natural witnesses. The Supreme Court held that leave to grant appeal is warranted to reappraise the entire evidence, noting that the respondent was a previous convict who had absconded and that the ocular account had withstood cross-examination. The key principle laid down is that minor investigative flaws and a negative forensic match do not necessarily destroy the intrinsic value of reliable eyewitness testimony, particularly when corroborated by the accused's absconsion.
Questions settled- Whether minor investigative flaws and a negative forensic report can outweigh consistent ocular testimony in a murder case?
- Does the absconsion of an accused person affect the evidentiary value of prosecution witnesses?
- Can the Supreme Court reappraise evidence to set aside an acquittal when the High Court relied on peripheral circumstances?
- State of Uttarakhand & Ors vs Smt. Sureshwati2021 SCInd 30 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
- State of Gujarat vs Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave2021 SCInd 46 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The State of Gujarat appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat, which had acquitted the respondent-accused of offences under Section 7 read with Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, thereby setting aside his conviction by the Special Judge. The core legal question was whether the High Court, acting as a first appellate court against a judgment of conviction, erred in law by failing to undertake a detailed re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record and the trial court's reasoning. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to exercise its powers properly as a first appellate court by merely making general observations instead of thoroughly re-appreciating the evidence, leading to a grave miscarriage of justice. The Court laid down the principle that while dealing with an appeal against conviction, unlike an appeal against acquittal where certain limitations and presumptions of innocence apply, the appellate court has wide powers and is legally bound to independently re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and address the trial court's reasoning. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court hearing a first appeal against conviction is required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record?
- What is the distinction between the approach of an appellate court dealing with an appeal against conviction versus an appeal against acquittal?
- Can an appellate court set aside a conviction without adverting to the reasons given by the trial court?
- Does the failure of a first appellate court to re-appreciate evidence in a criminal appeal warrant a remand of the matter?
- State Life Insurance Corporation, etc vs Mst. Syeda Muzhara Fatima2021 CLD 479, 2021 LHC 635 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
- State Life Insurance Corporation vs Mst. Bibi Reema2021 LHC 5373, 2022 PLJ Lahore 396 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
- State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Atta Ur Rehman2022 PSC 81 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over a life insurance claim rejected by the appellant, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, on the grounds of material concealment regarding the insured's pre-existing cardiac condition. The insured had passed away years after obtaining the policy. The Insurance Tribunal and the High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, holding the insurer liable. The Supreme Court addressed whether the insurer could avoid the contract for breach of the duty of utmost good faith (uberrimae fidei) and whether the statutory bar under Section 80 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, precluded the insurer from challenging the policy after two years. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the insurer failed to prove fraudulent misrepresentation. The Court affirmed that under Section 80, after two years, a life insurance policy cannot be avoided unless the insurer proves the statement was material, false, and made fraudulently with the insured's knowledge. Furthermore, the Court held that reliance on an insurer's own medical examination, which cleared the insured, negates the defense of non-disclosure.
Questions settled- Can an insurer avoid a life insurance policy after two years on the ground of inaccurate statements without proving fraud?
- Does an insurer's own medical examination of the insured preclude the defense of non-disclosure of pre-existing medical conditions?
- What are the cumulative conditions an insurer must satisfy to avoid a life insurance policy under Section 80 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000?
- Is the plea of the statutory bar under Section 80 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, required to be specifically pleaded by the claimant, or is it an automatic legal bar?
- State Life Insurance Corporation Of Pakistan through Zonal Head, Lahore2021 MLD 1604 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
- Srei Equipment Finance, Ltd vs Ramjan Ali & Ors2021 P SC (Crl.) 801 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court order directing the release of a hypothecated vehicle to a subsequent purchaser, despite the financier's objection. The core legal question was whether a vehicle registration obtained through the fraudulent cancellation of a hypothecation entry confers valid title upon a subsequent purchaser, thereby entitling them to the vehicle's release. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in ordering the release. The Court found that the original owner had fraudulently procured the cancellation of the hypothecation entry using forged documents, rendering the subsequent transfer and registration void ab initio. Consequently, the registering authority’s order cancelling the fraudulent registration was valid and binding. The Court established the principle that a registration certificate obtained through fraud is non-est, and a subsequent purchaser, even if claiming to be bona fide, cannot derive valid title from a fraudulent transaction that effectively bypasses statutory hypothecation requirements. Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the vehicle's release to the appellant financier.
Questions settled- Can a vehicle registration obtained through the fraudulent cancellation of a hypothecation entry be treated as valid?
- Does a subsequent purchaser of a vehicle acquire valid title if the original owner obtained the transfer through fraud?
- Is a registering authority empowered to cancel a registration certificate obtained on the basis of false documents under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988?
- Should a court order the release of a vehicle to a purchaser when the underlying registration is based on a fraudulent cancellation of a financier's hypothecation entry?
- Soomar alias Liaquat Ali son of Gulab vs Raza Muhammad son of Shah Bux2021 SHC 164 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the prosecution had proved its case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, taking into account delayed FIR, contradictions in medical and ocular evidence, lack of explanation for specific injuries, and exculpatory testimony by the deceased's widow. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, as multiple material flaws, unexplained delays, and inconsistencies undermined the trustworthiness of the prosecution's case. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentences, laying down the principle that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether the prosecution's failure to explain material delays in lodging the FIR and recording witness statements creates sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal?
- Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the cause of a fatal injury entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Can an accused person be convicted solely on the basis of a belated recovery when the core prosecution case is doubtful?
- What is the legal effect of the deceased's widow testifying as a court witness that she does not know who killed her husband?
- Sona Chemicals through Chief Executive and 2 others vs Inspector General2021 MLD 901 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-25Read full judgment →
- Sohail Shahzad vs Chief Election Commission of Pakistan, etc2021 LHC 7454 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-02Read full judgment →
- Sohail Riaz vs Zubaida Begum through Legal Heirs and others2021 YLR 2399 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-09-17Read full judgment →
- Sohail Hameed vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Islamabad and others2021 MLD 2085 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-31Read full judgment →
- Sohail Hameed vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 1100 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-31Read full judgment →
- Sohail Almas vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1138, 2021 YLR 1514 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of eight kilograms of heroin at Benazir Bhutto International Airport. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution successfully established the nexus between the appellant and the recovered luggage and whether the chemical examiner's report complied with mandatory statutory requirements. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key evidentiary failures included the non-production of the baggage tag and off-load proforma, and the failure to secure CCTV footage. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that under Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, a Government Analyst must provide full protocols of the tests applied. The absence of these protocols renders the chemical report unreliable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing that a single reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case is sufficient to warrant an acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the failure to produce a baggage tag in a narcotics case create an adverse inference against the prosecution?
- Is a chemical examiner's report admissible if it fails to specify the full protocols of the tests applied as required by Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
- Can an accused be convicted for narcotics possession based solely on oral assertions when the material evidence is doubtful?
- Sohail Akhter vs The State2021 MLD 549 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Sohail Akhtar, facing charges under Sections 322, 279, 337-G, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a fatal traffic accident involving a dumper truck. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who lacked a valid heavy transport vehicle license at the time of the incident, was entitled to the concession of bail despite the severity of the consequences, which included the death of one person and the paralysis of another. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, emphasizing that driving a heavy vehicle without a valid license constitutes an unlawful act. The court reasoned that such reckless conduct, resulting in grave harm, precludes the exercise of judicial discretion in favor of the accused. The key principle laid down is that while bail is generally a rule, it may be denied in cases of rash and negligent driving where the accused lacks a valid license and the act results in severe loss of life or permanent injury, as such conduct warrants strict judicial treatment.
Questions settled- Is a person driving a heavy transport vehicle without a valid license entitled to bail when their actions result in death and serious injury?
- Does the absence of a valid driving license render an act of rash and negligent driving an 'unlawful act' for the purpose of bail consideration?
- Can the court exercise its discretion to grant bail in cases of fatal accidents caused by unlicensed drivers?
- Sohail Akhtar, Sub-Inspector, Fia Circle,Faisalabad vs Director General, Federal Investigation Agency, Fia Headquarters, Islamabad and another2021 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 27 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal was filed by a Sub-Inspector of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) challenging the imposition of a minor penalty of withholding of increments for two years without cumulative effect, and the subsequent rejection of his departmental appeal. The core legal question was whether the authorized officer was justified in dispensing with a formal inquiry and imposing a minor penalty based on a roznamacha entry showing the appellant's absence from duty, and whether the appellant's defense regarding official duty in Khushab was tenable. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the appellant failed to raise his specific plea of having asked the moharar to enter his departure in the roznamacha during his initial reply to the show-cause notice or his departmental appeal, rendering it an afterthought. The Tribunal ruled that sufficient proof of absence existed on the record, justifying the summary procedure. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.
Questions settled- Whether an authorized officer can dispense with a formal inquiry and impose a minor penalty under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 when sufficient proof of absence exists?
- Can a plea raised for the first time in the memo of appeal, which was omitted in the reply to the show-cause notice and departmental appeal, be accepted as a valid defense?
- Whether the penalty of withholding of increments for two years is commensurate with the charge of unauthorized absence from duty during an official inspection?
- Sohail Ahmed vs Haji Shafqat Ali & others2021 SCP 228, 2021 PSC 1604, 2021 SCMR 1336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside the petitioner’s appointment as Lambardar of Chak 8-R/B. The core legal questions concerned the scope of the High Court's interference with concurrent findings of revenue authorities and the validity of a Lambardar's appointment who was a non-resident and obtained the position through suspicious land transactions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly interfered because the revenue authorities' orders were non-speaking and failed to provide reasons, thereby violating the requirements of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act 1897. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a Lambardar must reside in the village to discharge duties efficiently. The Court affirmed that the appointment process lacked bona fides, particularly given the surreptitious nature of the candidate's selection and the failure of lower forums to address the limitation plea. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the appointment and initiate the selection process afresh.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of revenue authorities if the orders are non-speaking?
- Does the failure of a revenue authority to provide reasons for its decision violate Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act 1897?
- Is the appointment of a non-resident Lambardar valid when the appointment process lacks bona fides?
- Sohail Abbasi vs Mst. Khshboo and others2021 CLC 1904 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-15Read full judgment →
- Sohail & others vs Pakistan National Shipping2021 SHC 418 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Society For Community Development (SCD), through Executive Director vs United Nations International Children Emergency Fund, (Unicef), Pakistan through Representative and others2021 CLC 1379 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-31Read full judgment →
- Sobia Jabeen and others vs Judge Guardian Court (East), Islamabad2021 CLC 934 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-28Read full judgment →
- Sobia Aamir through Attorney vs Registrar Of Trade Marks and another2021 CLD 1022, 2022 PLJ Karachi 31 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-01Read full judgment →
- SNGPL vs Ghulam Mohy-Ud-Din2021 PLJ Lahore 232 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-12Read full judgment →
- SKP Food And Trading through Director vs Federal Board Of Revenue2021 PTD 725 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-02-22Read full judgment →
- Skardu Lube Line, through Hiader Aman and others vs Ministry Of Defence2021 PTD 758 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-06-29Read full judgment →
- Siraj Ahmed and another vs Azizullah2021 SHC 1312 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal bail application filed by the applicants, Siraj Ahmed and Wajid Ali, seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 269/2021, registered at Police Station A-Section Ghotki, for offences under sections 337-F(v), 337-A(i), 337-A(iii), 337-F(i), 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants' initial request for pre-arrest bail was declined by the Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC) Ghotki, primarily because the medical evidence supported the injuries, specifically a nasal bone fracture categorized as Shujjah-i-Hashimah. However, during the proceedings before the High Court, the applicants produced a letter from a Special Medical Board dated 22.11.2021, which suspended the validity of the initial medical certificate. The core legal question was whether the suspension of the medical evidence warranted the confirmation of bail. The Court held that the suspension of the medical certificate created a case for further inquiry. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that these observations were tentative and would not prejudice the trial.
Questions settled- Does the suspension of a medical certificate by a Special Medical Board constitute sufficient grounds to establish a case for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the primary medical evidence supporting the injuries has been declared invalid or suspended?
- Sir Syed Cooperative H.S Ltd vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 SHC 1214 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
- Sip Munwar Ali & others vs Fazal Muhammad & others2021 SHC 1138 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-08Read full judgment →
- Sindh Petroleum And Cng Dealers Association and others vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 PTD 713 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-11Read full judgment →
- Sindh Club Karachi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax South Zone, Karachi2021 PTD 658 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-02Read full judgment →
- Sindh Agriculture University Tando Jam vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 776 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sikandar Vighio vs The State2021 SHC 1238 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal case registered against the applicant, Sikandar Vighio, and others for house trespass and theft of gold ornaments, goats, and clothes. Having been refused pre-arrest bail by the trial court, the applicant approached the Sindh High Court through a bail application under Section 498-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail in light of delayed FIR registration, weak identification evidence, and the acquittal of co-accused with similar roles. The Court held that a case for pre-arrest bail on the point of mala fide was made out due to the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, weak identification under a solar light bulb, and the prior acquittal of co-accused. Consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicant was confirmed. The key principle laid down is that unexplained delay in FIR registration, weak identification evidence, and the acquittal of co-accused with similar roles constitute valid grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR justifies the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused persons with a similar role provide a ground for granting pre-arrest bail to the remaining accused?
- Whether weak identification evidence under a solar light bulb makes out a case for pre-arrest bail on the point of mala fide?
- Sikandar Mahmood (deceased) through legal heirs, etc vs Lahore2021 CLC 1201, 2021 PLJ Lahore 676, 2021 LHC 881 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Ismail Khan vs Ms Seemi Abbas & 2 others2021 IHC 260 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-29Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Hayat & others vs Federation of Pakistan etc2021 PHC 192, 2022 PTD 11 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a series of writ petitions filed by provincial government employees serving in the former Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (Ex-PATA). Following the merger of these areas into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa via the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2018, the Federal Government issued SRO No. 1213(1)/2018 granting certain tax reliefs. The core legal question was whether these employees, by virtue of their domicile and posting in the Ex-PATA region, were entitled to exemption from income tax deductions on their salaries under the said SRO. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the claimed tax exemption. The ratio decidendi is that the tax relief provided by SRO No. 1213 applies only to income that was not chargeable to tax prior to the Twenty-fifth Amendment. Since the salaries of government employees were already subject to income tax regardless of their place of posting, they did not qualify for the exemption. The Court affirmed that civil servants are liable to pay income tax on salaries, and mere posting in a specific region does not confer tax immunity absent a specific statutory exemption.
Questions settled- Are provincial government employees serving in the former Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (Ex-PATA) exempt from income tax on their salaries following the Twenty-fifth Amendment?
- Does SRO No. 1213(1)/2018 grant income tax exemption to government employees whose salaries were already subject to tax prior to the merger of tribal areas?
- Is a civil servant's liability to pay income tax on salary affected by their place of posting within the province?
- Sikandar Ali Mugheri vs DSP Sultan Ahmed Chandio and others2021 SHC 1318 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal acquittal appeal was filed before the Sindh High Court impugning the judgment of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Qamber, which acquitted the private respondents of charges involving house-trespass, dacoity, abduction for ransom, and unlawful assembly initiated via a direct complaint. The core legal question was whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal suffered from any perversity, illegality, or gross misreading or non-reading of evidence to justify appellate interference. The High Court observed that the direct complaint had been filed with an unexplained delay of six days. Additionally, the appellant was a condemned prisoner facing death penalty in a murder case registered by one of the private respondents, demonstrating that the complaint was instituted mala fide to exert pressure for a compromise. The appellant and his witnesses also substantially contradicted the version set up in the complaint. Reaffirming that interference in acquittal judgments is exceptionally narrow and limited, the High Court held that the trial court's findings were neither arbitrary nor cursory, and dismissed the appeal in limine.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal in a criminal case?
- What is the effect of an unexplained delay in filing a direct criminal complaint?
- Can a criminal complaint be deemed mala fide when filed by a convicted individual to pressure the opposing party into a compromise in another criminal case?
- Sikandar Ali alias Bhola vs The State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 513, 2021 YLR 1381 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution’s case, resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that the conviction was sound, as the prosecution successfully established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances, including the appellant's motive, his presence at the crime scene, the recovery of the murder weapon on his pointation, and corroborating medical evidence. The court affirmed that while a case based on circumstantial evidence requires careful scrutiny to ensure no missing links, such evidence is sufficient for conviction if it is cogent, convincing, and incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The court concluded that the prosecution’s evidence was consistent and reliable, leaving no room for reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's culpability, thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the trial court's judgment.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
- What is the standard of proof required for circumstantial evidence to form the basis of a criminal conviction?
- Does the failure of an accused to produce defense evidence strengthen the prosecution's case in a trial based on circumstantial evidence?
- Sikandar Ali alias Bhola vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 513 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment addresses an appeal against the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased through strangulation, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment. The core legal question involved whether the circumstantial and medical evidence, alongside motive and the last-seen theory, sufficiently established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt in the absence of direct eyewitnesses to the actual murder. The court held that the prosecution successfully linked the appellant to the crime through a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, including entry records, mobile phone data, recovery of the weapon of the crime on the appellant's pointation, and the natural, unimpeachable testimony of the deceased's daughter. The key principle laid down is that capital or major criminal convictions can safely rest on circumstantial evidence provided the circumstances are fully established, form an unbroken chain connecting the accused directly to the crime, and are incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
- Whether the failure of an accused to produce defence evidence or depose on oath can be used to strengthen the prosecution's case?
- Does a delay in the registration of the First Information Report vitiate the prosecution case if reasonably explained?
- What constitutes a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence required for a conviction in a capital charge?
- Sicpa Sa vs Federation of Pakistan and four others2021 SHC 1014 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-20Read full judgment →
- Sibtain alias Sippi vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1652 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application for post-arrest bail concerns offences under Sections 324/109/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether a conflict between medical evidence and the ocular account entitles an accused to bail, and whether the petitioner’s diagnosis of Acute Myeloid Leukemia warrants release on medical grounds. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail. It established that when medical evidence contradicts the ocular account, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused, even at the bail stage. Furthermore, the court affirmed the principle that bail on medical grounds is appropriate where an accused suffers from an ailment that cannot be adequately treated within jail premises, and where continued incarceration would be hazardous to the accused's life or health, requiring specialized care, isolation, or hygiene not ordinarily available in a custodial environment.
Questions settled- Does a conflict between medical evidence and the ocular account entitle an accused to bail?
- What is the legal criteria for granting post-arrest bail on medical grounds in non-bailable cases?
- Is it necessary for an ailment to be life-threatening to justify bail on medical grounds?
- Shunaid Akbar s/o Akbar Ali vs Muhammad Waseem2021 SHC 1133 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-14Read full judgment →
- Shumaila Salman Shah vs Federation Of Pakistan through Minister, Ministry2021 PLD Sindh 476 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-23Read full judgment →
- Shumaila Salman Shah and 4 others vs Federaton Of Pakistan through M_o. Federal Education and Professional Training and others2021 PLJ Karachi 155 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-23Read full judgment →
- Shumaila Salman Shah & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 478 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-21Read full judgment →
- Shukat Ali vs Govt of KP2021 PHC 370 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-18Read full judgment →
- Sht. Santoshi and another vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 123 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
- Shoukut Ali vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation through Administrator2021 MLD 1243 · Sindh High Court · 2012-11-30Read full judgment →
- Shoukat Ali etc vs Muhammad Anwar etc2021 PLJ Lahore 318 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-16Read full judgment →
- Shoaib Sohail vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1710 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 869/2020 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the dishonour of a cheque. The petitioner sought bail after lower courts dismissed previous applications. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, charged with an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was entitled to the concession of bail. The Court held that the offence under Section 489-F, PPC does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and therefore, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The Court emphasized that bail should not be denied based on mere apprehensions or the magnitude of the financial amount involved, nor should detention be used as a form of punishment. Relying on established precedents, the Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to bail, as his further detention served no useful purpose for the prosecution, and ordered his release upon furnishing bail bonds.
Questions settled- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be denied in non-prohibitory offences solely on the ground that the alleged financial amount involved is large?
- Should the refusal of bail in non-prohibitory offences be based on mere apprehension of the repetition of the offence?
- Shoaib Aslam vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1697 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 389 dated 18.04.2020, involving offences under Sections 337-F(v), 337-A(ii), 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Saddar, District Sialkot. The petitioner was accused of attacking the complainant party with co-accused, specifically causing an injury to the right foot of the injured with a brick. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the alleged injury and the statutory punishment prescribed. The Court observed that the injury attributed to the petitioner fell under Section 337-F(v), which carries a maximum punishment of five years, thereby excluding it from the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the Court noted a four-day delay in reporting the incident and that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation. Consequently, the Court held that the case warranted further inquiry and granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the petitioner's continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose.
Questions settled- Does an offence punishable with a maximum of five years imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a delay in reporting an incident to the police a relevant factor for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- When can a case be considered to fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs State of Maharashtra2021 SCInd 118 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the conviction and life sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife, Jayashree, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, alleging the appellant killed his wife by strangulation. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence proving the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the medical evidence regarding the cause of death. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the death was homicidal, as the medical expert's testimony and post-mortem report were inconclusive and did not rule out suicide. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not shift the burden of proof to the accused until the prosecution has established a prima facie case. The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove motive or a complete chain of circumstances, and as two views were possible, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Does Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 absolve the prosecution of its primary burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt?
- Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the prosecution fails to prove the death was homicidal?
- Is the failure of an accused to provide an explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 sufficient to complete a broken chain of circumstantial evidence?
- In a case of circumstantial evidence, what is the legal effect of the absence of motive?
- Shereen Zada vs Director FIA, Zonal and 2 others2021 MLD 1330 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-04Read full judgment →
- Sheraz Khan vs The State, etc2021 LHC 3627, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 310, 2022 PCr. LJ 203 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 13, 14, and 16 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 read with sections 109, 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 can be investigated and tried jointly, and whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and coordinate offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 cannot be tried jointly by a special court constituted under the Act, as there is no specific provision for joint trial. The court laid down the principle that white-collar crimes committed using information systems must be distinguished from ordinary offences, and ordinary penal offences committed through information systems are to be tried by ordinary courts. Finding that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that the petitioner's further detention was unnecessary, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Can offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 be tried jointly by a court constituted under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016?
- Do offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 committed through the use of an information system fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of courts constituted under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016?
- To what extent does Section 28 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 make the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable?
- When is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Sher Zaman Khan & others vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2021 PHC 148, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1335 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the compulsory retirement of Khasadars/Sepoys of the Bajaur Levies, who sought to set aside retirement orders issued upon their reaching 50 years of age. The petitioners contended that following their absorption into the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Khasadar Force Act, 2019, they were entitled to the 60-year superannuation age applicable to provincial civil servants. The core legal question was whether the new legislative framework superseded the previous service rules regarding the age of retirement. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Khasadar Force Act, 2019, and its associated rules did not repeal the existing retirement age provisions. The Court affirmed that the Khasadar Force remains governed by its specific legal dispensation, and the mere absorption into the provincial police structure does not automatically extend general civil service retirement ages to the force. The principle established is that specific service rules governing a force continue to apply unless explicitly amended or repealed by new legislation.
Questions settled- Does the absorption of the Khasadar Force into the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police automatically entitle its members to the 60-year superannuation age applicable to provincial civil servants?
- Do the existing service rules regarding retirement age for the Khasadar Force remain in effect after the promulgation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Khasadar Force Act, 2019?
- Can a retirement order be considered invalid solely because it was issued after the employee reached the age of superannuation due to administrative delays?
- Sher Zaman and 5 others vs Karimullah Baig and 7 others2021 MLD 447 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-09-16Read full judgment →
- Sher Zaman and 4 others vs Government Of Balochistan, Secondary2021 CLC 532 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-13Read full judgment →
- Sher Wali vs The State and 5 others2021 MLD 1709 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two post-arrest bail petitions filed in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i)(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail in a case where multiple co-accused have already been acquitted and the principal accused was absolved of charges, making their vicarious liability and common intention a matter of further inquiry. The court decided to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioners. The key principles laid down are that the benefit of the acquittal of co-accused can be extended to an accused at the bail stage under peculiar circumstances, that abscondence alone is not sufficient to deny bail if the accused otherwise makes out a case on merits, and that tentative assessment of the record is required without indulging in deeper appreciation.
Questions settled- Whether the acquittal of co-accused can be extended as a benefit to an accused seeking post-arrest bail?
- Does abscondence alone suffice to disentitle an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail if a case for further inquiry is made out on merits?
- Can petitioners be saddled with vicarious liability for murder when the principal accused has been acquitted and their own intent requires deeper trial evaluation?
- Sher Muhammad Khaskheli vs 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge and 6 others2021 YLR 1759 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Criminal Acquittal Appeal challenged the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge-II, Kotri, which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 324, 353, 394, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence, justifying appellate interference. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted material contradictions, unreliable witness testimony, and the absence of credible identification evidence. The court reaffirmed the principle that an accused acquitted after a full trial earns a "double presumption of innocence." Consequently, appellate courts must not interfere with an acquittal judgment unless it is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, fanciful, or suffering from gross misreading of evidence resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The court emphasized that interference is not warranted simply because a different conclusion might be reached upon re-appraisal of the evidence.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment?
- Does an accused person earn a double presumption of innocence after being acquitted by a trial court?
- Is an appellate court permitted to reverse an acquittal judgment simply because a different conclusion is possible upon re-appraisal of evidence?
- What is the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding appeals against acquittal?
- Sher Muhammad alias Shero vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 760 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Sher Muhammad alias Shero, who was convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court for kidnapping for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the abduction of the victim and the subsequent receipt of ransom money. The Lahore High Court upheld the trial court's conviction, finding the prosecution's evidence consistent and credible. The court relied on the testimony of the abductee, who identified the appellant, and the recovery of ransom money from the appellant during the investigation. The court held that the prosecution had successfully proven the charge, noting that the defense failed to establish any enmity or motive for false implication. The judgment reinforces the principle that where prosecution witnesses provide consistent testimony regarding the commission of an offense and the recovery of incriminating evidence, such evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for kidnapping for ransom.
Questions settled- Is the testimony of an abductee sufficient to establish the identity of the kidnapper in a case of kidnapping for ransom?
- Does the recovery of ransom money from an accused during investigation constitute sufficient evidence to support a conviction under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the defense fails to establish any motive for false implication by the prosecution witnesses?
- Sher Muhammad (deceased) through LRs, etc vs Mst. Sameeri Bibi2021 [M] C L R 628 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad (deceased) through LRs etc vs Mst. Sameeri Bibi2021 PLD Lahore 287, 2021 LHC 162 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
- Sher Khan Pahore vs Executive Engineer Highways Division, Jacobabad2021 MLD 1393 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-23Read full judgment →
- Sher Ali vs Syed Hamid Ali and another2021 SHC 780 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
- Sher Afzal vs State2021 PHC 158 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-20Read full judgment →
- Sher Afzal vs Jangi Bahadur2021 YLR 547 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-06-21Read full judgment →
- Shell Pakistan Ltd. through its Legal Counsel vs Full Bench, NIRC, Islamabad2021 IHC 30 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Zafar Iqbal vs National Accountability Bureau and others2021 IHC 274 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-01Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Tanveer Ahmad vs United Bank Limited2021 PLJ Lahore 507 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-02Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Taimur Ali Mustafa vs Register, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others2021 CLC 529 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-17Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Shahid Jamal vs National Accountability Bureau and others2021 PLD Lahore 411 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 13(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 challenged an order of the Accountability Court confirming a freezing order and the appointment of a receiver over the appellant's immovable property. During the hearing, the appellant abandoned the challenge against the freezing of the property and restricted the objection to the appointment of the receiver, arguing it was unwarranted without any risk of waste or destruction. The core legal questions involved whether the appointment of a receiver under section 12(c)(ii) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 is mandatory upon freezing property, and whether the discretionary power to appoint a receiver was exercised reasonably and lawfully. The Lahore High Court held that the appointment of a receiver is directory rather than mandatory, and that such power must be exercised judiciously, fairly, and reasonably, requiring proof that the property is in danger of being wasted, dissipated, or misappropriated. The court set aside the receivership order due to mechanical exercise of discretion without valid grounds.
Questions settled- Is the appointment of a receiver under section 12(c)(ii) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 mandatory upon the freezing of immovable property?
- What constitutes 'reason to believe' for the purpose of freezing property under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
- Whether the discretionary power to appoint a receiver requires objective justification and proof that the property is in danger of being wasted or dissipated?
- Does the appointment of a receiver without stating proper reasons violate the principles of fairness and Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
- Syed Imran Gillani vs The State and another2022 YLR 769 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail petition arising from a criminal case involving a First Information Report (FIR) and a cross version registered at Police Station Shahzad Town, Islamabad, under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether conflict between ocular account and medical evidence warrants bail, and how counter-versions of the same incident impact the assessment of further inquiry under criminal procedure. The Islamabad High Court held that where medical evidence conflicts with the ocular account regarding the attribution of injuries, and in cases of cross versions where the determination of the aggressor requires further inquiry, the benefit of doubt at the bail stage must be extended to the accused. The court laid down the principle that bail is not to be withheld as punishment, tentative assessment of record is permissible without delving into deep appreciation, and counter-versions generally warrant the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 pending trial.
Questions settled- Does a conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage?
- Are cases involving counter-versions arising from the same incident generally covered for the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be withheld as a punishment when the accused is no longer required for investigation and the trial has not made fruitful progress?
- Sindh Games Association (Regd.) vs Province of Sindh and three others2021 SHC 1314, 2022 CLC 2083 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-17Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Muhammad Muneer vs Mst. Feezan2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 372, 2021 PLD Supreme Court 538, PLJ 2021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case concerned a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a house, which the respondent-defendant denied executing. The core legal questions revolved around the proof of execution of a document required by law to be attested, specifically whether a scribe could be considered an attesting witness and the requisite number of witnesses under the Qanun-e-Shahadat and Islamic injunctions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal, affirming the lower courts' decision that the petitioner failed to prove the agreement's execution. The Court held that a scribe is not an attesting witness unless explicitly nominated as such in the document. It was further established that for documents pertaining to financial or future obligations, at least two attesting witnesses (two men or one man and two women) are mandatory for proof, as per Article 79 and Article 17(2)(a) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, read with Verse 282 of Al-Baqarah of the Holy Qur'an. The Court also reiterated that the burden to prove a witness's death or inability to be found lies with the party relying on the document, and oral evidence cannot contradict document contents without permission for secondary evidence. The judgment underscored the importance of Islamic injunctions regarding women's property rights and contractual autonomy.
- Sheikh Muhammad Ahsan Akhtar vs Deputy Commissioner/Registrar2021 IHC 220 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-09Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Ishtiaq Ahmad, etc vs Muhammad Usman Ali Sheikh and another2021 P SC 1441, 2021 SCMR 1277, 2021 SCP 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a pre-emption suit where the respondent claimed a superior right as a Shafi Jar regarding two plots but failed to plead or document ownership of the adjacent property in the plaint. The core legal question was whether a plaint failing to assert this essential ownership, which constitutes the foundation of the Shafi Jar right, warrants rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court held that the plaints merited rejection as they failed to disclose a cause of action and were barred under the Punjab Pre-Emption Act, 1991. The Court emphasized that material facts must be explicitly pleaded; if a fact is not pleaded, no case can be founded upon it, and evidence cannot be led to support unpleaded claims. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Trial Court's decision to reject the plaints for failing to disclose a cause of action and lacking the essential ingredients of the claimed pre-emptive right.
Questions settled- Can a plaint in a pre-emption suit be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if the plaintiff fails to plead ownership of the adjacent property?
- Is a plaintiff permitted to lead evidence to establish a material fact that was not pleaded in the plaint?
- Does the failure to state ownership of the adjacent property in a suit claiming the right of Shafi Jar constitute a failure to disclose a cause of action?
- Sheikh Ishtiaq Ahmad and 7 others vs Muhammad Usman Ali Sheikh2021 YLR 315 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-09Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Iqbal and another vs The State2017 PCRLJ 1536, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 861 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2017-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from an impugned judgment of the Chief Court whereby an appeal filed by the State was allowed, setting aside a Judicial Magistrate's acquittal order and remanding an Arms Ordinance case back to the Anti-Terrorism Court. The petitioner was originally charged under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, alongside a separate FIR under the Arms Ordinance. The Trial Court had transferred the Arms Ordinance case to the Judicial Magistrate, who subsequently acquitted the petitioner due to the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses. The core legal question was whether the Arms Ordinance case, constituting corroborative evidence connected to the main anti-terrorism case, could be legally tried separately by a Judicial Magistrate. The Supreme Appellate Court held that transferring the connected arms case was illegal and unwarranted, affirming the Chief Court's decision to remand it to the Anti-Terrorism Court. The court established that corroborative recovery cases intrinsically linked to a main trial before an Anti-Terrorism Court cannot be excised and tried independently, and upheld the inherent powers of the superior court to correct such procedural abuses.
Questions settled- Can a case registered under the Arms Ordinance relating to a recovery in an anti-terrorism case be separately tried by a Judicial Magistrate?
- Does an Anti-Terrorism Court have the legal justification to transfer a connected arms recovery case to the court of a Judicial Magistrate?
- What is the scope of the inherent powers of the Chief Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to prevent abuse of process?
- Whether an acquittal order passed by a Judicial Magistrate on the ground of non-prosecution of witnesses can be set aside when the case was improperly transferred?