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.

• Sheikh Adil Masood, Advocate High Court Of Azad Jammu And Kashmir, Mirpur and 40 others vs Azad Jammu And Kashmir Government through Chief Secretary and 22 others2021 YLR 150 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Raheem vs The State and another2021 SCMR 822 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-30
  post-arrest baildishonestly issuing a chequeprohibitory clausestatutory periodexpeditious trialbail recall
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arose from the refusal of post-arrest bail by the Lahore High Court in a case involving Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the alleged offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioner had been in custody since September 2020. The Supreme Court observed that the maximum punishment for the offence is three years and noted that the petitioner had already secured bail in other pending cases. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail, emphasizing that the trial had remained pending since 2017 despite previous High Court directions. The Court laid down the principle that for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause, bail is generally a rule and its refusal an exception, while also directing the trial court to conclude proceedings within a specific timeframe and authorizing the recall of bail if the concession is misused or the trial is delayed by the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence under Section 489-F PPC falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  • Can bail be granted where the maximum punishment for the alleged offence is three years and the trial has been significantly delayed?
  • Does the involvement of an accused in other criminal cases automatically bar the grant of bail if they have already been allowed bail in those specific matters?
  • What are the consequences if an accused misuses the concession of bail or causes delays in the conclusion of the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehzadan Mayi vs Area Magistrate, etc2021 LHC 1262 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-28Read full judgment →
• Shehri - Citizens Fora Better Environment and others vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 PLD Supreme Court 743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-14
  anti-encroachmentstorm water nallahsKarachi floodinginterim injunctionsrehabilitation of affecteesTribunal Anti-Encroachment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court upon applications regarding interim stay and status quo orders passed by the Tribunal Anti-Encroachment, Karachi, which obstructed the court-ordered cleaning and removal of encroachments from major storm-water nallahs in Karachi. Heavy monsoon rains in 2020 had caused severe flooding and loss of life due to choking and illegal construction on nallahs. The core legal question concerned whether occupants and alleged leaseholders could stall anti-encroachment operations through Tribunal injunctions, and the adequacy of rehabilitation measures. The Supreme Court held that the purported leases were without lawful authority, and the interim injunctions granted by the Tribunal must be recalled and vacated to allow public safety operations to proceed. The key principle laid down is that unauthorized constructions and encroachments blocking natural drainage channels cannot be protected by judicial stay orders, provided the government ensures compensation and rehabilitation for dislocated affectees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether interim injunctions and stay orders passed by the Tribunal Anti-Encroachment can impede court-mandated cleaning and removal of encroachments from storm-water nallahs?
  • Do occupants claiming leases over nallah land hold valid rights when no lawful allotment scheme is established?
  • Whether the government's commitment to compensation and housing for dislocated affectees satisfies the requirement for reasonable rehabilitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehnaz Zaidi vs Federation of Pakistan & two others2021 SHC 422 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-20Read full judgment →
• Sheheryar Hussain and others vs The State and others2021 P Cr. L J 647 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-08-27
  murdercommon intentionirrigation water disputeocular testimonymedical corroborationappeal against acquittallife imprisonmentbenefit of doubtcompromise
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses multiple criminal appeals and revisions arising from a single FIR regarding a murder stemming from a dispute over irrigation water. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence, the credibility of eyewitnesses, the effect of delays in recording statements, and the validity of an acquittal based on partial compromise in a murder case involving common intention. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of two appellants under sections 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while dismissing the State's appeal for the enhancement of their sentences to death. Furthermore, the court accepted the State's appeal against the acquittal of a third co-accused, setting aside his acquittal and convicting him under section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, to life imprisonment. The key legal principles laid down are that minor discrepancies or delays by the investigating agency in recording witness statements do not vitiate a trustworthy ocular account corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, and that a compromise on a compoundable hurt offence does not absolve an accused of a distinct non-compoundable murder charge arising from the same transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in recording statements of eyewitnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 discredits their testimony when their names are promptly mentioned in the FIR?
  • Can an accused charged with murder under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be acquitted merely on the basis of a compromise effected regarding a separate hurt charge under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the non-recovery of crime empties or failure to send a weapon for forensic expert opinion vitiate an otherwise proved prosecution case supported by eyewitness accounts?
  • Whether minor flaws and natural discrepancies in the testimonies of eyewitnesses are sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shazia Khalid vs Higher Education Commission and others2021 MLD 868 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-02Read full judgment →
• Shazia Abbas vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/o Law &2021 IHC 72 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shazaib, etc vs The State, etc2021 SCP 302, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 931, 2021 PLD Supreme Court 886 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-29
  pre-arrest bailbail petitionnon-appearance of accusedSection 498-A Cr.P.C.dismissal for non-prosecutionexamination of meritsstatutory pre-conditionfresh bail petitionad interim bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a pre-arrest bail petition for non-prosecution and on merits. The core legal question concerned the proper procedure for handling pre-arrest bail petitions when the accused-petitioner is absent, specifically interpreting Section 498-A Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court held that Section 498-A Cr.P.C. mandates the personal presence of the accused for a court to exercise jurisdiction in pre-arrest bail matters. Consequently, if the accused is not present, the petition must be dismissed for non-appearance, and the court is not authorized to examine the merits of the case, unless a satisfactory explanation for absence is furnished and accepted. The Court clarified that its earlier judgment in Muhammad Saleem Akhtar v. State pertained to post-arrest bail, not pre-arrest bail, and therefore did not support deciding pre-arrest bail on merits in the accused's absence. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the High Court's observations on the merits, while affirming the dismissal for non-appearance. Petitioners were permitted to file a fresh bail petition with a satisfactory explanation for their prior absence.

  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ullah and 2 others vs Gul Umar through L.Rs. and 5 others2022 YLR 628 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-15Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hayat Awan Sr. Engineer (Civil) and 3 others vs Managing Director, Oil & Gas Development Company, Blue Area, Islamabad and 10 others2021 PLJ Islamabad 107 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sharif Ahmed Qureshi vs Wing Cdr. (R) Mazhar Mirza and 7 others2022 YLR 572 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-03Read full judgment →
• Share Holders Of Karakuram Co-Operative Bank (KCB.) and others vs Karakuram Co-Operative Bank through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan as Ex-Officio Chairman KCBL and others2021 CLD 1147 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-10-08Read full judgment →
• Sharafat Khan vs The State2022 PLD Supreme Court 281, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 66, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 1020 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-28
  narcotic drugsrepresentative samplechemical examinercontrol of narcotic substancesfair trialsentencing reductioncriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for possessing 25,000 grams of charas contained in 25 packets, each comprising 14 slabs. The trial court and High Court maintained his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether samples taken only from each packet, rather than from every individual slab, constituted a valid representative sample pursuant to the precedent in Ameer Zeb v. The State. By a majority of two to one, the Supreme Court held that to burden an accused with criminal liability for an entire bulk of narcotics, a representative sample must be drawn from every physically separate and independent unit, such as each slab, to satisfy the fair trial and due process guarantees under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Since samples were only drawn from each of the 25 packets (covering 25 slabs equivalent to 1,785 grams), the conviction was maintained but the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • Is a sample taken from a bulk narcotic seizure considered representative if it is not drawn from every physically independent and separate unit?
  • Does the failure to draw representative samples from each slab of recovered charas limit the accused's criminal liability to the quantity actually tested?
  • Does testing a representative sample of a narcotic drug amount to the test and analysis of the entire quantity under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does drawing representative samples from all separate units of a recovered narcotic substance flow from the right to fair trial and due process under Article 10A of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharafat Ali vs Secretary, Works & Service Department, Government of Sindh and others2021 IHC 300 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-30Read full judgment →
• Sharafat Ali vs Mst. Shahjahan Begum and another2021 MLD 1484 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-15Read full judgment →
• Sharaaf Khan vs The State2021 P Cr. J 1664 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-13
  Qatl-i-Amdabscondencemitigating circumstancestransposed evidenceunproven motivedeath sentence alterationnatural witnessessection 512 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference challenge the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Sharaaf Khan, who was tried and convicted by the trial court under sections 302(b), 449, and 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a death sentence, imprisonment for life, and rigorous imprisonment respectively, along with compensation and arsh. The core legal questions involved the admissibility and evidentiary value of statements of deceased eye-witnesses recorded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the impact of unproven motive and failed recovery on the prosecution's case, and the factors constituting mitigating circumstances for altering a death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Lahore High Court held that the testimony of natural eye-witnesses transposed from section 512 proceedings was admissible under Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and fully corroborated by medical evidence. However, because the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive and the weapon recovery was flawed, the court maintained the conviction for Qatl-i-Amd but altered the death sentence to imprisonment for life, establishing that failure to prove an asserted motive serves as a mitigating circumstance against the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether depositions recorded during proceedings under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be transposed and read as substantive evidence in the main trial when the deponent witnesses have died?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an asserted motive operate as a mitigating circumstance for altering a sentence of death to imprisonment for life under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether long-term abscondence of an accused acts as an incriminating piece of corroborative evidence when considered alongside direct ocular testimony?
  • Can related and injured witnesses be considered natural witnesses when an occurrence takes place inside their dwelling house?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamsuddin alias Shaman & others vs Rabnawaz (deceased) through his2021 SHC 1184 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shamsher etc vs Civil Judge Lalian Distt. Chiniot and others2021 PLJ Lahore 949 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-21Read full judgment →
• Shamroze Khan vs NAB and Others2021 SHC 352, 2022 MLD 18 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-24Read full judgment →
• Shamona Badshah Qaisarani vs Election Tribunal, Multan etc2021 P SC 1387, 2021 SCMR 988, 2021 SCP 152, 2022 PLJ SC 107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-16
  permanent disqualificationSadiq and Ameennomination papersnon-disclosure of assetselection petitiondishonest intentinherited propertyRepresentation of the People Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution arose from the disqualification of the appellant by the Election Tribunal and the High Court under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. The disqualification was based on the appellant's failure to disclose inherited agricultural land in her nomination papers for a bye-election. The core legal question was whether every non-disclosure of assets in nomination papers automatically warrants permanent disqualification for lack of being 'Sadiq' and 'Ameen'. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the disqualification. The Court held that Article 62(1)(f) requires a finding of dishonest intent or the acquisition of assets through corrupt practices to justify a lifetime ban. The Court clarified that inadvertent omissions, bad judgment, or negligence regarding legitimately acquired assets (such as inherited property) do not constitute dishonesty. The ratio decidendi establishes that a declaration of disqualification must be based on affirmative evidence of a dishonest act intended to gain an illegal advantage, rather than mere technical omissions or surmises.

  Questions settled

  • Whether every non-disclosure or mis-declaration of assets in nomination papers is sufficient to permanently disqualify a candidate under Article 62(1)(f)?
  • Can an Election Tribunal issue a declaration of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) without recording affirmative evidence of dishonest intent?
  • Does the omission of an inherited asset due to bad judgment or negligence, without proof of corrupt practices, constitute 'dishonesty' for the purpose of election law?
  • Whether a declaration of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) must be based on a reasoned judgment following due process and fair trial under Article 10A?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamim Akhtar vs Muhammad Rafiq and 10 others2021 YLR 405 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-02-03Read full judgment →
• Shamim Akhtar vs Govt of Sindh & Ors2021 SHC 201 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-25Read full judgment →
• Shamdas and others vs Muhammad Hassan and others2021 SHC 986 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-29Read full judgment →
• Shakir Ali and another vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman, Islamabad and another2021 PLC (C.S.) 683 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-04
  removal from servicedispensation of inquirynatural justicedepartmental appealNAB employeesright to fair trialfact finding inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employees of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), challenged notifications imposing the major penalty of removal from service and subsequent orders dismissing their departmental appeals by the President of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether a major penalty of removal from service could lawfully be imposed upon a civil servant without conducting a formal inquiry and without providing an opportunity of cross-examination. The Sindh High Court held that except in special circumstances, a civil servant must not be awarded a major penalty without a proper inquiry, and that the discretionary power to dispense with an inquiry must be exercised reasonably with plausible, communicated reasons rather than arbitrarily. The Court ruled that relying solely on a fact-finding inquiry report without joining the employee violates the principles of natural justice and Article 10-A of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court set aside the removal orders and the appellate rejections, remanding the matters for a de novo regular inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Can a major penalty of removal from service be lawfully imposed on a civil servant without conducting a formal and regular inquiry?
  • Whether the competent authority is required to record and communicate plausible reasons when dispensing with a departmental inquiry?
  • Does the reliance on a fact-finding committee's report without joining the affected employee violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Are appellate authorities such as the President of Pakistan duty-bound to record reasons when deciding statutory service appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeela Nazir vs Director Project Pakistan Bait-Ul-Mal, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others2021 PLJ Lahore 573 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Shah vs The State, etc2022 SCMR 1, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 1024, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 33 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-04
  post-arrest bailstatutory baildelay in trialhardened criminalright to libertyfair trialcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged the Islamabad High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was charged under sections 392, 411, and 75 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of the statutory right to bail under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically regarding the delay in trial conclusion and the exceptions for 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' criminals. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail as the trial had not concluded within the statutory one-year period and the delay was not attributable to him. The Court established that the statutory right to bail is rooted in the constitutional right to liberty and fair trial under Articles 9 and 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. It clarified that the 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' exception must be interpreted ejusdem generis with offences punishable by death or life imprisonment, requiring evidence of a serious threat to society, and that mere adjournments do not automatically constitute a concerted effort to delay trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory right to bail under section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply when a trial for a non-death penalty offence exceeds one year?
  • What constitutes a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' under the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can mere adjournments sought by an accused's counsel be considered a concerted effort to delay a trial for the purpose of denying statutory bail?
  • How should the phrase 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' be interpreted in the context of bail exceptions?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Masih vs The State2021 IHC 108 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-11
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsborderline criteriachemical analysis delayfurther inquirybail as punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Shakeel Masih, who was charged under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 1500 grams of charas. The central legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the quantity of the narcotic substance and procedural lapses in the investigation. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on two primary factors: first, the recovered quantity of 1500 grams falls within the 'borderline' criteria established by judicial precedent, where the substance marginally exceeds the threshold for lesser offenses; second, the prosecution failed to send the sample for chemical analysis within the mandatory 72-hour period, causing an unexplained seven-day delay. The Court affirmed the principle that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment and that procedural lapses, such as delays in chemical analysis, render a case one of further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court noted that mere allegations of habitual offending without prior conviction do not preclude the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in sending a narcotic sample for chemical analysis beyond the 72-hour limit entitle an accused to bail?
  • Is a recovery of 1500 grams of charas considered a 'borderline' case for the purpose of granting bail?
  • Does the mere allegation of being a habitual offender without prior conviction disentitle an accused from the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed Malik vs Muhammad Azam and others2021 SHC 1178 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad Zaidi and others vs Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Punjab, Lahore and others2021 PLC (C.S. ) 560, 2021 P SC 1054, 2021 SCMR 474, 2021 SCP 80 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-13
  locus poenitentiaeSpecial Allowancerecovery of overpaymentillegal ordervested rightHigher Education Departmentbona fide receiptservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the recovery of a Special Allowance paid erroneously to government employees. The appellants, originally Instructors absorbed into the Higher Education Department, were paid a Special Allowance meant exclusively for General Cadre Lecturers. Subsequently, the department discontinued the allowance and initiated recovery from their salaries. The appellants argued that having received the payment bona fide, the amount could not be recovered pursuant to the principle of locus poenitentiae. The Supreme Court held that the exception to the doctrine of locus poenitentiae is strictly confined to benefits received bona fide under an order that was lawfully passed by a competent authority before being subsequently withdrawn. Because the underlying order sanctioning payment to the appellants was patently illegal, unauthorized, and contrary to clear notifications, no vested right could accrue. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's order allowing recovery of the overpaid amount in easy installments, and dismissed the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government employee invoke the exception to the doctrine of locus poenitentiae to prevent recovery of financial benefits granted under an unlawful or unauthorized order?
  • Whether recovery of excess financial benefits received by an employee can be ordered if the underlying payment was made in clear contradiction of the governing notification?
  • Can a valid and vested right be founded upon an order that is fundamentally illegal and passed without competence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad vs The State2021 PHC 360, 2024 MLD 1700 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-08Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Sajid and another vs Roohullah Jan and 5 others2021 YLR 1688 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-05Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Farrukh Hussain vs Mst. Farah Nishat and 3 others2021 YLR 1363 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-08Read full judgment →
• Shahzana Kazmi vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Islamabad2021 PLD Lahore 823 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-25Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Shahpur Jan vs Govt of KP2021 PHC 372, 2022 CLC 928 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-18Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Qaiser Arfat @ Qaiser vs The State, etc2021 PLD Supreme Court 708, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 589, 2021 SCP 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-03
  pre-arrest bailmalafideright to fair trialconspiracyabetmentpolice power of arrestfundamental rightscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arose from the denial of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was nominated as an abettor in a triple murder case. The petitioner contended that he was in Saudi Arabia at the time of the occurrence and that his nomination was based on malafide. The Supreme Court examined the scope of pre-arrest bail in the context of the constitutional right to liberty and fair trial under Article 10A. The Court held that while pre-arrest bail is often termed an 'extraordinary relief', it serves as a vital check on the police's power to arrest. The Court clarified that the existence of the power to arrest under Section 54 Cr.P.C. does not automatically justify its exercise; the police must show sufficient grounds and a valid purpose for detention. Furthermore, the Court ruled that independent proof of malafide is not a mandatory prerequisite for pre-arrest bail if there is a lack of incriminating material. Finding only vague allegations of conspiracy with no requirement for physical recovery, the Court granted the bail.

  Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Colonel Sharifud-Din &others vs The Settlement Officer Districts2021 PHC 256 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shahzada Colonel Sharif-Ud-Din and others vs The Settlement Officer2021 CLC 1968 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-28
  civil revisiontemporary injunctionpecuniary jurisdictionforum of appealimplied repealbalance of convenienceconstruction at own risk and cost
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged an appellate order passed by the District Judge, which had set aside a temporary injunction granted by the trial court and allowed the respondents to raise construction on the disputed property at their own risk and cost. The core legal questions revolved around the forum of appeal for interlocutory orders under Section 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in light of amendments introduced by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Code of Civil Procedure (Amendments) Act, 2020, versus notifications under the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, and whether an appellate court can permit construction during a pending title suit. The Peshawar High Court held that the subsequent primary legislation (Section 106 of the Code) impliedly repealed or took precedence over inconsistent subordinate legislation and notifications regarding appellate forums, ensuring appeals against orders lie to the next higher court in hierarchy. On merits, the Court held that since the plaintiffs were out of possession and the defendants claimed title via registered sale deeds, allowing construction at the defendants' own risk and cost—supported by an undertaking not to claim compensation—properly balanced convenience and prevented irreparable loss. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the amendments to Section 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Code of Civil Procedure (Amendments) Act, 2020 prevail over notifications issued under Section 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962?
  • Does a subsequent primary legislation impliedly repeal inconsistent provisions of earlier subordinate legislation regarding the forum of appeal?
  • Can an appellate court permit a defendant to raise construction on a disputed property at their own risk and cost during the pendency of a title and possession suit?
  • Whether the balance of convenience lies in allowing ongoing construction at the builder's own risk and cost when the plaintiff is out of possession and claims title?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Aman Room & others vs Miangul Hilal & others2021 PHC 166, 2022 CLC 659 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-22Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Waheed vs Agha Khan University and 2 others2021 MLD 1402 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-04Read full judgment →
• Shahzad vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and 3 others2022 LHC 4905, 2025 PCRLJ 447 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-29
  Ex-officio Justice of Peaceres judicataregistration of FIRquasi-judicial proceedingsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged an order passed by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace dismissing an application for the registration of a criminal case. The petitioner had previously filed a similar application on the same facts before another Ex-officio Justice of Peace, which was dismissed on merits and attained finality. The core legal question was whether the principle of res judicata applies to quasi-judicial proceedings under section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, rendering a second application on the same facts not maintainable. The Lahore High Court held that since an Ex-officio Justice of Peace exercises quasi-judicial functions under section 22-A(6), the general principle of res judicata applies to such applications, prohibiting repetitious applications on the same cause of action, though an aggrieved person remains entitled to file a private complaint as an independent statutory remedy. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principle of res judicata applies to proceedings before an Ex-officio Justice of Peace under section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is a second application under section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 maintainable on the same facts after the dismissal of a prior application on merits?
  • What is the nature of the functions discharged by an Ex-officio Justice of Peace under section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Shahmir and others vs Government Of Sindh through Chief2021 PSC 1173, 2021 SCMR 824, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-12
  contract employmentBPS-17Sindh Public Service Commissionproject-based appointmentillegal appointmentservice lawconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh regarding the termination of contract appointments for Headmasters/Headmistresses (BPS-17) under the Second Sindh Education Sector Reform Project (SERP-II). The core legal question was whether the petitioners, appointed on contract for a project that had already concluded, possessed a valid legal right to continue their employment, particularly when such appointments bypassed the Sindh Public Service Commission. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the appointments were illegal on their face. The Court reasoned that the project for which the petitioners were hired had ceased to exist, and the Sindh Government had not absorbed these positions into the non-development budget. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the principle that appointments to BPS-17 posts must be conducted through the Sindh Public Service Commission as mandated by the Constitution, and contract appointments bypassing this statutory process are inherently unlawful. Consequently, the petitioners held no vested right to continued employment.

  Questions settled

  • Can contract appointments be made to BPS-17 posts bypassing the Sindh Public Service Commission?
  • Does an employee have a right to continue in a post when the project for which they were hired has ceased to exist?
  • Are appointments made in violation of statutory recruitment processes considered illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Rafique vs Najaf Iqbal2021 CLC 569 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-05Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Hameed vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1829 · Lahore High Court · 2010-06-09
  criminal revisionframing of chargeabduction for murdercausing disappearance of evidencePakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge framing charges against the petitioner and his co-accused under Sections 364, 302, 201, 404, 408, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a murder case. The core legal question was whether a charge under Section 364 (abduction for murder) and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) can be legally sustained and framed alongside a murder charge when the victim was allegedly murdered and the dead body was recovered. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision, holding that whether Section 364 applies alongside a murder charge depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, such as the proximity of time and place between the abduction and the killing, and no fixed universal yardstick exists. The court affirmed that the trial court's framing of charges under Sections 364, 201, 34, and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was correct and unexceptionable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a charge under Section 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be framed alongside a murder charge when the abducted person is subsequently murdered?
  • Does the framing of a charge under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 become illegal merely because a dead body has been recovered?
  • Can a fixed universal rule be applied to determine whether an offence falls under abduction for murder or pure murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited through Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhary and 16 others2021 MLD 77 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-17Read full judgment →
• Shahroom Khan vs Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge, Muzaffarabad2021 SC AJK 60 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-09-30Read full judgment →
• Shahjahan Lashari S/O Muhammad Essa vs The State2021 SHC 536 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-22
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlprohibitory clauserecovery of charaschemical examiner reportcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of Crime No. 388/2021 registered at Police Station Baghdadi Karachi South under Sections 6 and 9(c) of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, concerning the alleged recovery of 2,500 grams of charas from the applicant. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the large quantity of narcotics recovered and the applicability of the prohibitory clause. The Court held that since the recovered quantity of charas exceeded the statutory threshold and fell within Clause (c) of Section 9 of the Act of 1997, attracting the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and Section 51 of the Act of 1997, the applicant was not entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that where the recovered quantity of narcotics falls within the prohibitory clause and is supported by a positive chemical examiner's report, bail will generally be declined, and the non-association of public witnesses alone does not warrant bail at the pre-trial stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused found in possession of narcotics exceeding the limit prescribed in Clause (c) of Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the non-association of public witnesses during the recovery of narcotics constitute sufficient ground for the grant of bail?
  • Whether the bar contained in Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 applies to offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahin Shah vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Irrigation Department, Peshawar and others_2022 SCP 269, 2023 PLJ 155, 2022 SCMR 1810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-20
  arbitration awardrule of courtmisconduct of arbitratorenlargement of timeappealable orderssubstantial compliancelimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court setting aside a trial court decree that made an arbitration award a rule of court and remanding the matter. The core legal questions involved whether the trial court's order making the award a rule of court was appealable under the Arbitration Act, 1940, whether the arbitrators misconducted themselves by delaying the award, and whether statutory notice and limitation rules were properly applied. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its appellate jurisdiction by entertaining grounds outside Section 17 and Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and misread the record regarding arbitrator misconduct, notice, and limitation. The Court affirmed that an extension of time granted by the trial court in the presence of the parties cured the delay, and substantial compliance with notice requirements sufficed where parties actively participated in proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's judgment making the arbitration award a rule of court.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order of the trial court making an arbitration award a rule of court appealable beyond the grounds specified in Section 17 and Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Does the failure of arbitrators to file the arbitration award within the initial four-month period constitute legal misconduct under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 when extensions have been granted by the court?
  • Whether strict formal notice under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is mandatory when the parties are present in court and have knowledge of the filing of the arbitration award.
  • Does Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to arbitrators for filing an award or to parties seeking to make an award a rule of court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahida Adnan vs Additional District Judge and others2021 YLR 1915 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-01
  custody of minorvisitation rightswelfare of the minorGuardians and Wards Actwrit jurisdictionMuslim Personal Law
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which dismissed the respondent-father's application for the custody of his minor daughter under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, but established a visitation schedule. The petitioner-mother argued that the visitation schedule was illegal, asserting the minor lacked attachment to the father and that the father failed to maintain the child. The core legal question was whether the father should be denied visitation rights when custody is awarded to the mother. The High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, emphasizing that the paramount consideration in custody matters is the welfare of the minor. The Court held that a father cannot be denied the right of access to his child, as the minor requires the love, affection, and guidance of both parents. Denying such access would lead to emotional deprivation. Consequently, the Court affirmed the visitation schedule, ruling that the lower courts correctly applied the law and evidence, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is a father entitled to visitation rights with his minor child even if custody is awarded to the mother?
  • What is the paramount consideration for courts when determining custody and visitation matters under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
  • Does the denial of a father's access to his minor daughter constitute emotional deprivation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Wahab Siddiqi vs Syed Farhaj Ahmed and 2 others2021 YLR 1060 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-02
  illegal dispossessioninterim reliefrestoration of possessioncriminal complaintacquittaljurisdiction on title
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged a judgment whereby his acquittal under sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was accompanied by a refusal to restore possession of the subject property, which had been taken from him as interim relief during the trial. The core legal question was whether an interim order passed under section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act survives the dismissal of the main criminal complaint and acquittal of the accused. The Sindh High Court held that an interim order is provisional and temporary in nature, and upon the dismissal of the complaint, the interim order automatically ceases to exist and merges into the final order, necessitating the restoration of status quo ante. The court laid down the principle that a criminal court exercising jurisdiction under the Illegal Dispossession Act cannot determine civil title or ownership, and upon acquittal or dismissal of the complaint, any interim possession granted to the complainant must be reversed and property restored to the person from whom it was taken.

  Questions settled

  • Does an interim order of dispossession passed under section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 survive the dismissal of the main complaint and acquittal of the accused?
  • Is a criminal court exercising powers under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 competent to adjudicate upon civil title and ownership of the disputed property?
  • What is the legal effect of an interim order upon the final disposal of a criminal case?
  • Whether the unproven testimony of a sole attorney is sufficient to establish ownership and illegal dispossession in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid vs LD j.m 3 mtmc tando allahyar & others2021 SHC 167 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18
  transfer of criminal casejoint trialsame transactionmagisterial courtconsolidation of casescriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two transfer applications concerning criminal cases pending before separate Magisterial Courts in Hyderabad and Tando Allahyar. The applicant sought the consolidation of these cases, which involve allegations of theft and misuse of a cheque, to avoid conflicting judgments. The core legal question was whether two cases arising from the same transaction, currently pending in different jurisdictions, should be tried together by a single court. The Court held that, pursuant to the principles of criminal procedure, persons accused of different offences committed during the course of the same transaction should be tried jointly. Finding that the alleged theft and subsequent misuse of the cheque constituted a single transaction, the Court determined that no prejudice would be caused by consolidation. Consequently, the Court ordered the withdrawal of the case from the Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Hyderabad, and its transfer to the Judicial Magistrate-III, Tando Allahyar, for joint disposal within one month, thereby ensuring procedural efficiency and consistency in the adjudication of related offences.

  Questions settled

  • Can cases involving different offences committed during the course of the same transaction be tried jointly?
  • Does the transfer of a case to another court for joint trial cause prejudice to the parties involved?
  • Is it appropriate to transfer a case to a different jurisdiction to avoid conflicting judgments?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Tufail Khan and others vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 1130 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-02
  Constitutional petitionBank managementPromotion policyService regulationsStatutory interpretationBoard of DirectorsImplementation of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the implementation of a Supreme Court judgment regarding promotion policies for employees of the Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited. The petitioners challenged the Bank's failure to properly implement the apex court's directive, specifically contesting the unilateral actions taken by the Bank's President. The core legal question was whether the President possessed the authority to formulate policy decisions to satisfy the Supreme Court's mandate while the Bank's Board of Directors remained dysfunctional. The Court held that the President lacked the jurisdiction to make such policy decisions, as Section 11 of the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974 vests policy-making powers, including personnel and evaluation criteria, exclusively in the Board. Consequently, the impugned notifications issued by the President were set aside. The Court established the principle that statutory powers assigned to a Board cannot be usurped by the Chief Executive in the absence of a validly constituted Board. The matter was remanded to the newly constituted Board with a directive to implement the Supreme Court's judgment within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Can the President of a bank exercise policy-making powers in the absence of a lawfully constituted Board of Directors?
  • Does Section 11 of the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974 vest the authority to determine personnel policies exclusively in the Board?
  • Is a Chief Executive empowered to unilaterally implement a court directive that requires policy formulation when the Board is dysfunctional?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Sultan Durrani vs The State and others2021 SCMR 827 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-03
  pre-arrest baildishonest issuance of chequefinancial disputecompromisecriminal breach
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by Shahid Sultan Durrani challenging the order of the Peshawar High Court refusing him pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 555 dated 12.09.2020 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Shabqadar, District Charsadda. The core legal question concerns the grant of pre-arrest bail where the accused expresses readiness to settle the financial dispute by paying the disputed cheque amount. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition based on the consensus between the parties, granting interim protection subject to the condition that the petitioner pays the entire disputed amount of Rs. 40,00,000 to the complainant within a specified timeframe. The holding establishes that if the petitioner honors the commitment, the protective arrangement holds, but failure to pay results in the automatic lapse of the restraining order, allowing the police to proceed with the arrest.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be disposed of on the basis of a settlement or undertaking given by the accused to pay the disputed amount?
  • What is the legal consequence if an accused fails to honor an undertaking given to the court for the payment of a disputed cheque amount in a pre-arrest bail matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Shafiq Alam Faridi and another vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2021 SCMR 1210, 2021 PSC CRI 24, 2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 87, PLJ 2022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-25
  post-arrest bailunconscionable delayprinciple of consistencyaccountability referenceprolonged incarcerationtrial delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioners in a National Accountability Bureau reference. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of unconscionable delay in the conclusion of their trial, particularly when a co-accused with a shorter period of incarceration had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and admitted the petitioners to bail. The Court held that keeping the petitioners incarcerated, when a co-accused had been granted bail for unconscionable delay and the trial proceedings were significantly delayed without the petitioners being solely responsible, would be unjust. The Court applied the principle of consistency, noting that the delay in the trial, with seventy-five prosecution witnesses still to be examined, rendered continued incarceration unconscionable. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, while emphasizing that the petitioners could not leave the country without the trial court's permission.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of consistency require the grant of bail to an accused when a co-accused has been granted bail on the ground of unconscionable delay?
  • Can prolonged incarceration of an accused in a National Accountability Bureau reference constitute grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is the grant of bail appropriate when the responsibility for trial delay cannot be entirely attributed to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Shafi vs Messrs Quice Food Industries Public Limited Company, Karachi and 7 others2021 YLR 208 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-30Read full judgment →
• Shahid Nadeem vs State2021 PHC 382, 2022 PCr. LJ 872 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-02Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mahmood vs The learned Judge Family Court, etc2021 [M] C L R 850 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-05Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mahmood vs Islamia University Bahawalpur etc2021 LHC 4791 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-14Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mahmood vs Islamia University Bahawalpur and others2022 PLC (C.S.) 956 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-14
  writ of quo warrantoappointment of registraruniversity syndicatestatutory autonomyconstitutional jurisdictionservice lawpublic advertisement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the notification dated 29.01.2021 appointing Respondent No. 3 as Registrar (BS-20) of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur. The petitioner, an Additional Treasurer (BS-19), argued that the appointment was made without proper public advertisement and in violation of recruitment regulations. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether the University Syndicate acted within its statutory powers under the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act 1975 when appointing the Registrar and whether judicial interference was warranted under constitutional jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Section 16 of the Act, the Syndicate is the competent appointing authority for the post of Registrar and is empowered under Section 33 to frame rules governing university affairs. The Court observed that prior advertisements yielded no suitable candidates, prompting the Syndicate to frame relevant rules in 2020 and appoint an eligible candidate. Reaffirming established precedent, the Court held that internal administrative procedures and appointments of an autonomous statutory university cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction absent concrete proof of mala fides, bias, or statutory illegality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court under constitutional jurisdiction can interfere with administrative decisions and appointments made by a university Syndicate absent proof of mala fides or illegality?
  • Whether the Syndicate of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur has the statutory power under Section 16 and Section 33 of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act 1975 to appoint a Registrar pursuant to framed university rules?
  • Are autonomous statutory universities subject to general government service recruitment rules regarding mandatory re-advertisement when governed by their own statutory enactments?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Iqbal vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2021 PLC (C.S.) 711, 2021 PHC 18 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-26
  writ petitiontermination of servicepublic sector companymaster and servantnatural justiceunbridled discretioncontractual employment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, appointed as Chief Financial Officer of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Economic Zones Development & Management Company (a public sector company), challenged his termination from service. His services were terminated by the Board of Directors under Clause 5.1 of his employment contract, which allowed termination with one month's notice or salary in lieu, without any charge, inquiry, or hearing. The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the relationship was governed by the principle of master and servant. The Peshawar High Court held that contract employment in public sector companies falls within the scope of public employment and is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. On the merits, the Court ruled that the Board of Directors exercised its discretion arbitrarily and without independent application of mind, ignoring inquiry reports that favored the petitioner. The Court declared that the doctrine of pleasure and unbridled discretion are alien to the rule of law, and allowed the petition, setting aside the termination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract employment in a public sector company fully owned or controlled by the government is amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199?
  • Whether the principle of master and servant applies to contract employees of public sector companies and corporations?
  • Can a public sector employer terminate a contract employee under a termination-at-will clause without providing an opportunity of hearing or showing reasonable cause?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Iqbal vs Chairman Evacuee Trust Board and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 606 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-05
  constitutional petitionregularization of servicetemporary employeework charge basiscontract employmentvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a quasi-judicial order that rejected his request for regularization of his service as a security guard on a daily wages and temporary work-charge basis. The core legal questions involved whether a temporary contract employee whose term has expired can claim regularization as a matter of right and whether self-marked attendance entries can confer vested rights to continuous employment. The Court held that an employee appointed on a purely temporary or work-charge basis, who accepts the specific contractual terms explicitly barring regularization, has no vested right to claim extension of contract or permanent employment upon expiry of the term. The Court laid down the principle that a person who accepts the terms and conditions of a temporary or contractual employment cannot resile from them at a belated stage, and a contract employee whose services automatically terminate upon expiry of the stipulated period cannot seek regularization through constitutional petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee appointed on a purely temporary or work-charge basis has a vested right to claim regularization of service upon the expiry of his contract?
  • Can an employee who accepted the terms and conditions of a temporary employment contract resile from them at a belated stage to demand permanent employment?
  • Does unauthorized marking of attendance after the expiry of a temporary contract create a legally enforceable right to continuous service?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Farooq vs Additional District Judge-Shah Kot, District Nankana2021 PLJ Lahore 446 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shahid Aziz vs Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Multan and 42021 PLC 118 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-17
  termination of serviceeligibility criterialocus poenitentiaecontractual appointmentconstitutional petitionvoid ab initioregular inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the dismissal of the petitioner's grievance against his termination from service as a driver (BS-04). The core legal questions are whether the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications, specifically an LTV driving license and two years of experience, at the time of his appointment, and whether his termination without a regular inquiry was unlawful. The Court held that the petitioner failed to meet the eligibility criteria at the time of recruitment, as he lacked the mandatory LTV license and experience on the closing date for applications. The Court ruled that an appointment made without fulfilling basic eligibility criteria is void ab initio, and subsequent service does not cure this initial defect. Furthermore, the Court held that where the termination is based on a lack of initial qualification, a regular inquiry is unnecessary as there is no factual controversy to resolve. The principle of locus poenitentiae does not protect appointments obtained through misrepresentation or lacking basic eligibility. The petition was dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae protect an appointment obtained by a candidate who lacked the basic eligibility criteria at the time of recruitment?
  • Is a regular departmental inquiry mandatory before terminating a service contract where the termination is based on the lack of initial eligibility qualifications?
  • Can an appointment made without fulfilling the prescribed eligibility criteria be cured by subsequent service or the attainment of qualifications after the appointment?
  • Does the court have the authority to interfere in administrative policy matters regarding the fixation of appointment criteria?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Aslam vs The State2022 SCMR 737, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-05
  post-arrest bailpre-arrest bailcheque dishonourfinancial settlementrecovery forumcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the refusal of post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was initially booked for issuing a dishonoured bank cheque and had earlier secured pre-arrest bail by undertaking before the High Court to pay the complainant, which undertaking he subsequently failed to honour, leading to his re-arrest. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail can be denied or conditioned upon financial settlements and undertakings to complainants, and whether subsequent default warrants continued incarceration when the alleged offence does not attract the statutory prohibitory clause. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a court is a neutral arbiter owing responsibility to the law alone and cannot use bail proceedings to secure financial recoveries or allow a party to barter their freedom, and that established parameters for pre-arrest bail must be followed faithfully. The Court laid down the principle that criminal courts must decide bail matters strictly on legal parameters rather than acting as a recovery forum for financial disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court condition the grant of bail upon financial undertakings made by an accused to a complainant?
  • Whether the failure to honour a financial settlement before a court justifies the denial of post-arrest bail when the statutory prohibitory clause does not apply?
  • Is it permissible for a court to act as a recovery forum in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali vs The State2021 SHC 904 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali Khan vs Board of Governors, Hdip through its Chairman and others2021 IHC 150 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shahid Akhtar vs Muhammad Azam Abbas2021 LHC 7427, 2022 CLD 949, 2022 PLJ Lahore 731 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-02Read full judgment →
• Shahid Akbar Abbasi, Advocate vs The Chief Commissioner, Islamabad2021 [M] C L R 1046, 2021 PLD Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-22Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ahmed Khan Qaboolio vs Province of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 922 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-27Read full judgment →
• Shahid Abbas vs The State etc2021 SCP 387, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 989 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-12
  pre-arrest bailbailfurther inquirydelay in FIRmedico-legal reportfalse implicationfabrication of evidencecriminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the Lahore High Court's order declining pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question revolved around whether sufficient grounds existed for granting pre-arrest bail, particularly concerning the principle of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court noted an inordinate delay of 23 days in registering the FIR without plausible explanation, and critically, that the medico-legal report was obtained approximately 7-8 hours *prior* to the alleged occurrence. Furthermore, a medical board's report indicated that the possibility of fabrication for the head injury could not be ruled out, and civil litigation was pending between the parties. The Court held that these circumstances raised sufficient grounds to consider the petitioner's case as one requiring further inquiry into his guilt. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, allowed, and the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner was confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted where there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR?
  • Does a medico-legal report obtained prior to the alleged occurrence constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail matter?
  • Can the possibility of fabrication of injury, as indicated by a medical board, support a claim for pre-arrest bail?
  • Is the existence of pending civil litigation between parties a relevant factor when considering pre-arrest bail in a criminal case?
  • Under what circumstances does a case fall within the ambit of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Abbas vs The State and others2021 SCMR 2082 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-12
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquirydelayed FIRmedico-legal reportfalse implicationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had declined the petitioner's request for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges of house trespass and causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the specific allegations and the surrounding circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court observed that the FIR was registered after an inordinate delay of 23 days without a plausible explanation. Furthermore, the Court noted a significant discrepancy where the medico-legal report indicated the injured was examined hours before the alleged occurrence, casting doubt on the prosecution's narrative. Additionally, the existence of pending civil litigation between the parties suggested the possibility of false implication. The Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry, as contemplated by the law. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and confirmed the petitioner's pre-arrest bail, establishing that unexplained delays in FIR registration and contradictory medical evidence are valid grounds for granting bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a discrepancy between the time of an alleged occurrence and the time of a medico-legal examination justify the grant of bail?
  • Whether the existence of prior civil litigation between parties is a relevant factor when considering the possibility of false implication in a criminal case?
  • When does a case qualify for 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheryar Gul vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Principal Secretary to Governor Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar and others2021 PHC 352, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 985 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-27
  service terminationmajor penaltynatural justicedepartmental inquirybiasnemo debet esse judex in propria sua causawrit jurisdictioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the termination of the petitioner, a Computer Operator, from service by the Provincial Ombudsman. The core legal questions were whether a major penalty of removal from service could be imposed without conducting a regular departmental inquiry, and whether the authority who issued the show cause notice—being the subject of the alleged misconduct—could validly act as the competent authority to decide the case. The Court held that the impugned order was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of service jurisprudence. It ruled that imposing a major penalty without a regular inquiry is a violation of the principles of natural justice, as it denies the civil servant the right to defend themselves. Furthermore, the Court applied the maxim nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa, holding that the authority who is the complainant or subject of the alleged misconduct cannot act as the judge in the same matter. Consequently, the Court set aside the termination order and reinstated the petitioner with full back benefits, reaffirming that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.

  Questions settled

  • Can a major penalty be imposed upon a civil servant without conducting a regular departmental inquiry?
  • Does the principle of natural justice prohibit an authority from acting as a judge in a case where they are the complainant or subject of the alleged misconduct?
  • Is an order of removal from service valid if the competent authority is biased or has a personal interest in the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Merchant vs Federation Of Pakistan/National Tariff Commission2021 PTD 2126 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-14
  anti-dumping dutieswrit of mandamusexpeditious justicedoctrine of ripenessdoctrine of stop-gapstatutory appealtime-bound legislationNational Tariff CommissionAppellate Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal to decide a pending appeal within the statutory timeframe. The petitioner, an importer of Polyester Filament Yarn, challenged a final determination by the National Tariff Commission (NTC) under the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015. The core legal question concerned the effect of non-adherence by a special tribunal to time-specific legislative mandates and whether the High Court could grant interim relief under the 'Doctrine of Ripeness' and 'Doctrine of Stop-Gap' while an appeal is pending. The Court held that the State is constitutionally mandated under Article 37(d) to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice. It ruled that where a statute provides a time-bound appellate mechanism, the tribunal is bound to decide matters within that period to prevent the frustration of legal remedies. Consequently, the Court directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal within two months and ordered that any stay application be resolved within two weeks, applying the principle that recovery should not be finalized while a matter has not yet 'ripened' through the appellate process.

  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Ijaz alias Babu vs The State2021 SCMR 500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-10
  murderconvictionappealocular accountforensic evidenceacquittal of co-accusedmotiveproof beyond doubtdefense plealeave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned an appeal against the conviction of the petitioner for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was initially sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court. The core legal questions addressed the sufficiency of evidence, particularly the impact of the acquittal of co-accused (the petitioner's sons) on the prosecution's case against the main accused, the reliability of the ocular account, and the weight of forensic evidence despite an alleged procedural irregularity in the dispatch of exhibits. The Supreme Court declined leave to appeal, thereby upholding the conviction. The Court held that the acquittal of co-accused with inconsequential roles does not necessarily weaken the prosecution's case against the main accused, especially when the ocular account is straightforward and consistent. It was further affirmed that prompt reporting of an incident excludes possibilities of deliberation, and a preposterous defense plea of accidental fire, inconsistent with multiple gunshot wounds, merits outright rejection. The Court found the prosecution evidence constituted "proof beyond doubt."

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused necessarily cast away the entire prosecution case against the main accused?
  • Can an ocular account be relied upon if the alleged motive is disbelieved by the High Court?
  • Is a defense plea of accidental fire plausible when the deceased sustained multiple gunshot wounds to different body parts?
  • Does prompt reporting of an incident to the police exclude the possibility of deliberation or consultation?
  • Does the even-dated dispatch of casings and a gun necessarily render a forensic report inconsequential if it confirms injuries consistent with the weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Airport Services and another vs National Industrial Relations2021 P C T L R 1284, 2021 P SC 1201, 2021 SCMR 294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-07
  review petitioncharitable organizationindustrial relationsstatutory immunitytrade union registration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from civil review petitions filed by Shaheen Airport Services seeking review of paragraph 22 of a previous judgment dated 28.3.2018 passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the review petitioner, Shaheen Airport Services, qualifies as a charitable organization and is thereby excluded from the operation of industrial relations legislation under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, holding that the petitioner's establishment exists for making profit and merely yields its profits to the Shaheen Foundation for charitable purposes, which does not render the establishment itself a charitable organization. Consequently, the petitioner cannot claim statutory immunity under the exclusion clauses of the respective industrial relations statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an establishment that yields its profits to a charitable foundation qualifies as a charitable organization under industrial relations laws?
  • Does an establishment operating for profit enjoy immunity from the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013?
  • Can concurrent findings regarding the status of an establishment as a non-charitable entity be disturbed in review proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Arif vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1306 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-02
  narcotics controlcriminal appealsentencing reductionchemical analysisconsolidated samplesheroin recoveryAmeer Zeb principle
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Shahbaz Arif, who was found guilty by the trial court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possessing heroin at Islamabad International Airport. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the quantity of narcotics recovered, given that the investigating officer amalgamated heroin from multiple capsules into consolidated samples rather than testing each unit individually. The Court maintained the conviction, finding the prosecution's evidence regarding the recovery and chemical analysis sufficient to establish guilt. However, applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Ameer Zeb v. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380), the Court held that when narcotics are recovered in separate physical forms (such as capsules), a separate sample must be taken from each unit for chemical analysis. Failure to do so limits the quantity attributable to the accused to only the tested samples. Consequently, the Court reduced the appellant's sentence from seven years to six years, adjusting the fine accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Is it legally permissible to amalgamate separate narcotic capsules into a single sample for chemical analysis?
  • What is the consequence of failing to take separate samples from each individual packet or container of recovered narcotics?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be maintained if the quantity of narcotics proven is less than the total amount recovered?
  • Does the failure to follow proper sampling procedures for narcotics necessitate a reduction in the quantum of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz and others vs Muhammad Farooq Zahid, etc2021 [M] C L R 165 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-15Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz alias Raju vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 128 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-01
  post-arrest bailrobberyunnamed accusedsupplementary statementrecovery of cashcriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 402/2019 registered under Sections 392, 397, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ghallah Mandi, District Sahiwal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when he was not named in the initial crime report, was implicated belatedly through a supplementary statement without a stated source, and the sole recovery against him was a cash amount. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, holding that in the absence of sufficient incriminating material connecting the petitioner to the crime, delayed supplementary implication and the pendency of other criminal cases do not justify withholding bail. The key principle laid down is that delayed implication without a disclosed source and minor recoveries, coupled with a lack of direct incriminating evidence, entitle an accused to further inquiry under post-arrest bail considerations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused not named in the initial crime report is entitled to post-arrest bail when implicated through a belated supplementary statement without a disclosed source?
  • Can the pendension of other criminal cases of a like nature be used as a sole hurdle to withhold the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the mere recovery of a nominal cash amount from an accused constitute sufficient incriminating material to deny post-arrest bail in a robbery case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Ahmad vs The State etc2021 LHC 1560 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-23
  mental incapacityinsanity defenceCode of Criminal Procedure 1898procedural fairnessmedical boarddue processde novo trialbail for mentally disordered accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order by the Additional Sessions Judge regarding an accused who claimed mental incapacity during a murder trial. The core legal questions concern whether the trial court followed the mandatory procedure under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for determining the mental incapacity of an accused to stand trial, and whether the refusal to release the accused under section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was legally sound. The Court held that the trial court failed to adhere to the mandatory procedural requirements of section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which necessitates a structured inquiry, including the examination of the head of the medical board as a court witness and the opportunity for cross-examination by both parties. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, the proceedings were quashed, and the matter was remanded for a de novo determination of the accused's mental capacity. The Court affirmed that determining an accused's mental incapacity is a mandatory procedural step that must be based on objective assessment and medical evidence, emphasizing that international human rights standards regarding persons with disabilities must inform domestic judicial interpretation.

  Questions settled

  • What is the mandatory procedure for a Sessions Court to determine if an accused is of unsound mind and incapable of making a defence under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court rely on a medical report regarding an accused's mental health without examining the head of the medical board as a court witness?
  • Does the failure to follow the procedure for determining mental incapacity under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrant the quashing of trial proceedings?
  • Is the discretion to release an accused of unsound mind under section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to the prior determination of mental incapacity?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Ahmad vs The State and others2021 P Cr. L J 1100 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-23
  unsound mindmental disorderinsanity defencede novo trialcriminal proceduremedical boardbail pending trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's application for release under section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during his trial under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the mandatory procedure to be adopted by a trial court when an accused person appears to be of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the determination of an accused's mental capacity. The Court set aside the impugned orders, quashed the proceedings, and remanded the matter for a de novo determination of the petitioner's mental health status and a fresh decision on his release application. The key principle laid down is that an inquiry into an accused person's unsoundness of mind must strictly follow the procedural safeguards and medical evaluation protocols established by law before any orders regarding postponement of trial or detention can be legally sustained.

  Questions settled

  • What is the mandatory procedure for a Court of Session when an accused appears to be of unsound mind and incapable of making a defence?
  • Can a trial court postpone criminal proceedings without properly determining the mental capacity of the accused in accordance with law?
  • Under what circumstances can an accused person of unsound mind be released or detained pending trial under section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure of parties to raise the issue of an accused's mental incapacity debar the trial court from forming an opinion on its own?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahban Jhangwani And Others vs The State2021 SHC 108 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausefurther inquirytentative assessmentdelayed F.I.R.criminal bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by several accused persons in connection with F.I.R. No. 37/2020 registered at Police Station Naperkot, involving offences under sections 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 337-H(2), 114, 504, 506(2), 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries, the delayed registration of the F.I.R., and the existence of prior enmity between the parties. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The Court reasoned that the injuries sustained did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as they were punishable by imprisonment of up to five years. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the three-day delay in registering the F.I.R. and the admitted enmity between the parties constituted sufficient grounds to bring the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, necessitating a tentative assessment of the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a three-day delay in the registration of an F.I.R. constitute sufficient grounds to bring a case within the ambit of further inquiry for bail purposes?
  • Are offences punishable by imprisonment of up to five years considered outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is deep appreciation of evidence permissible when deciding a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahana Bano vs Govt. of Sindh and Others2021 SHC 608 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-08Read full judgment →
• Shahan and 4 others vs Muhammad Siddique and 2 others2022 MLD 592 · Sindh Revenue Board · 2019-12-31Read full judgment →
• Shahab Saqib vs Sadaf Rasheed, etc2022 KLR Civil Cases 45, 2021 [M] CLR 1530 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-03Read full judgment →
• Shah Maqsood vs Khair-Un-Nisa and 2 others2021 CLC 561 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-13Read full judgment →
• Shah Jhana Khan Niazi vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 190 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
• Shah Jehan and another vs Raheem Shah and others2021 PSC (Crl.) 996, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 29, 2022 SCMR 352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-20
  Section 540 CrPCsummoning of witnesseshostile witnessescriminal trialevidentiary lacunare-examination of witnessesrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, challenged a High Court judgment regarding an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned the permissible scope of summoning or re-summoning witnesses during a criminal trial to fill evidentiary gaps. The Supreme Court held that while Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allows the court to summon witnesses, it cannot be used to fill lacunas in the prosecution's case at a belated stage. The Court upheld the trial court's refusal to re-summon hostile witnesses whose cross-examination was complete, noting that changing testimony is not grounds for re-examination. Furthermore, the Court disallowed summoning the deceased's father as a new witness after a 14-month delay, as he was not cited in the initial report. However, the Court permitted the summoning of an eye-witness already named in the crime report. The key principle established is that the power to summon additional witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is discretionary but must be exercised cautiously to ensure a just decision, not to permit parties to fill evidentiary lacunas or introduce witnesses after significant, unexplained delays.

  Questions settled

  • Can the court allow the re-summoning of prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination solely because they turned hostile?
  • Is it permissible to introduce a new witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after a significant delay when that witness was not cited in the initial police report?
  • Does the power of the court to summon witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 extend to filling evidentiary lacunas in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Hussain vs Din Muhammad etc2021 PHC 208, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 158, 2022 MLD 46 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-29Read full judgment →
• Shah Hussain Shah vs Azad Government Of The State Op Jammu And Kashmir through Secretary Revenue and 15 others2021 YLR 1426 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-09-18Read full judgment →
• Shah Faisal vs The State2021 YLR 244 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-16
  murderpolice encounterchance witnessidentification paradebenefit of the doubtextra-judicial confessioncriminal appealanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, and sentencing him to death for the murder of two policemen. The core legal questions involved the reliability of chance eyewitnesses, the legal validity of an identification parade conducted after an unexplained delay while the accused remained in police custody, and whether circumstantial and forensic evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to untrustworthy eyewitness testimony, flawed identification parade procedures, inadmissible police confessions, and missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and answering the confirmation reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an uncorroborated chance witness whose presence is unexplained can be relied upon for sustaining a capital conviction?
  • Does an unexplained delay in conducting an identification parade while the accused remains in police custody vitiate its evidentiary value?
  • Can a confession made before a police officer be treated as admissible evidence against an accused person?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Whether medical evidence alone without reliable eyewitness testimony is sufficient to prove the identity of the assailant in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shagufta Sarwar Adpp vs Special Judge Anti Terrorism Court2021 LHC 7050, 2022 P Cr. L J 1594 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-15
  prosecutorial independencejudicial restraintphysical remandanti-terrorism courtprosecution departmentexpunction of remarksabuse of judicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a writ petition and a criminal revision assailing certain remarks and recommendations made by a Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) against an Assistant District Public Prosecutor (ADPP) and the Prosecution Department. The core legal question concerns the scope of powers and the legal role of prosecutors under the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006, particularly whether a prosecutor can legally offer an opinion on the applicable provisions of law while handling a request for physical remand, and whether an ATC judge can issue sweeping disciplinary directives against prosecutors for such opinions. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution service enjoys an independent statutory status, with prosecutors acting as gatekeepers required to be on board from day one of an FIR, and that prosecutors are fully empowered to offer legal opinions. The Court ruled that the ATC judge exceeded his jurisdiction and violated the doctrine of judicial restraint by making derogatory, insulting, and offensive remarks without any supporting material. Consequently, the Court allowed both matters and expunged the objectionable remarks and recommendations from the impugned order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether it is within the domain of a prosecutor to give an opinion on the application of specific provisions of law while forwarding an accused for physical remand?
  • Can an Anti-Terrorism Court judge issue directives for disciplinary action against prosecutors for interpreting legal provisions in opinions submitted to magistrates?
  • What is the statutory scope of powers and functions of public prosecutors under the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006?
  • When can disparaging remarks made by a judge against government functionaries or departments be expunged by a high court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafquat Hussain vs The State and another2021 MLD 1914 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-11
  Criminal Transfer ApplicationApprehension of biasSummary proceedingsJudicial impartialityTransfer of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Criminal Transfer Application filed under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the transfer of summary proceedings related to FIR No. 222 of 2019, registered under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, from the Court of the Consumer Protection Court/Judicial Magistrate, Khairpur. The applicant sought the transfer on the grounds of apprehended bias and a perceived hostile attitude from the presiding Magistrate, alleging a lack of hope for justice. The core legal question was whether sufficient grounds existed to justify the transfer of the case to another jurisdiction. The Court held that the applicant failed to produce any substantial material or evidence to substantiate the allegations of prejudice or bias against the Magistrate. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for being devoid of merit. The principle laid down is that a transfer of proceedings under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 requires concrete, substantial evidence of bias or prejudice, and mere apprehension without supporting material is insufficient to warrant the transfer of a case.

  Questions settled

  • Is a mere allegation of a hostile attitude by a Magistrate sufficient ground to transfer a criminal case under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the evidentiary threshold required to justify the transfer of a case due to alleged judicial bias?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Ali vs Chairman, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, etc2021 LHC 8186, 2022 CLC 1473 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-15Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Ali etc vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1381 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-09
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtidentification paraderecovery evidencedelayed FIRsupplementary statementmurder referenceocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court for offences under Sections 302, 394, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. Key factors included an unexplained delay in FIR registration, the absence of medical evidence for the deceased, and a flawed identification parade conducted after the accused were already known. Furthermore, the Court found that the ocular evidence was unreliable, particularly as it had been rejected regarding an acquitted co-accused. The Court also ruled that recovery evidence was inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the lack of independent witnesses. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the revision petition for sentence enhancement, emphasizing that supplementary statements naming suspects after significant delays are viewed as afterthoughts.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR undermine the veracity of the prosecution's case?
  • Is an identification parade legally valid if conducted after the accused has already been nominated by the prosecution?
  • Can recovery evidence be relied upon if the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are violated?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused based on specific evidence render that same evidence unreliable against other co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmed Shah vs The Administrator Karachi Metropolitan2021 PLC (C.S.) 949 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-29
  constitutional petitionposting and transferexhaustion of remediesservice matterdepartmental representation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional petition filed before the Sindh High Court by the petitioner, who contended that despite the successful completion of his appointment process and the issuance of a posting order, he was not being allowed to join his duties and his departmental representation remained undecided. The core legal question concerned the propriety of invoking constitutional jurisdiction in service matters relating to posting and transfer. The Court held that petty issues regarding posting or transfer should not be brought directly to the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, without first exhausting departmental remedies before the Secretary or Head of the relevant department. The Court disposed of the petition with directions to the competent authority to decide the petitioner's representation within fifteen days, and further laid down the principle that aggrieved employees must first approach the departmental head regarding posting and transfer grievances before approaching the High Court, which is barred from entertaining such constitutional petitions unless the alternative departmental remedy is exhausted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition be filed directly before the High Court seeking posting or questioning transfer without exhausting departmental remedies?
  • What is the procedure to be followed by an employee aggrieved by delay in posting or by a transfer order?
  • Within what timeframe must the Secretary or Head of a department decide an application or representation regarding posting or transfer?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmed Khan vs Azad Jammu And Kashmir Government through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 8 others2021 PLJ AJ&K 103 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad vs The State etc2021 KLR Criminal Cases 190, 2021 LHC 672 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-02
  extra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealterrorismburden of proofocular evidencerecoveryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the Anti-Terrorism Court for his alleged involvement in a terrorist attack on a police check post, resulting in the death of four policemen. The prosecution relied on ocular evidence, an alleged extra-judicial confession, and various recoveries. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession, and the admissibility of recoveries not properly put to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge. It found the ocular account contradictory, the extra-judicial confession unreliable and uncorroborated, and the recoveries tainted or inadmissible due to procedural failures, including the failure to confront the accused with incriminating evidence during his examination. The court emphasized that the seriousness of a crime does not absolve the prosecution from its burden of proof. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, affirming the principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of an extra-judicial confession without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure to confront an accused with incriminating evidence during his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render that evidence inadmissible?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession made while an accused is in police custody admissible in evidence?
  • Does the seriousness of a criminal charge shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafi Mohammad Khan vs Abdul Rehman and 5 others2021 MLD 416 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-16Read full judgment →
• Shafayat Ullah and 4 others vs Shah Khalid and another2021 YLR 1429 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-08-03
  post-arrest bailconspiracyalibimala fidefrivolous petitionsjudicial delaycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition involving multiple accused persons facing charges of conspiracy and murder. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail in light of the evidence, including a plea of alibi and the nature of the conspiracy allegations, amidst significant procedural delays caused by the complainant. The Court held that the accused were entitled to bail, finding that the conspiracy allegations were not supported by sufficient material at the current stage, the alibi was substantiated by documentary evidence, and the complainant’s conduct—characterized by filing frivolous transfer petitions to delay proceedings—demonstrated mala fide. The Court laid down key principles: conspiracy allegations must be tested through cross-examination and cannot justify detention without further proof; pleas of alibi supported by unimpeachable documents warrant bail; and "throwing a wider net" to implicate multiple persons is a practice to be deprecated. Furthermore, the Court established that frivolous transfer petitions should be summarily rejected and penalized, and that bail petitions must be decided expeditiously, ideally within one week of the first notice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere attribution of conspiracy by a prosecution witness, without further evidence, justify the denial of bail?
  • Can a plea of alibi supported by documentary evidence like biometric verification records serve as a valid ground for the grant of bail?
  • What is the legal consequence of a complainant filing frivolous transfer petitions to delay bail proceedings?
  • Should courts entertain transfer or no-confidence petitions against judges that lack objective evidence of bias or personal interest?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafa Ullah Khan vs The State and another2021 SCMR 2005 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-17
  Control of Narcotic Substances ActSection 9(c)Punjab Forensic Science Agencyforensic reportprotocol detailsSection 510 CrPCsafe custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellant contended that he was entitled to acquittal because the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency omitted the details of the protocol applied during the testing of the seized narcotics, relying on established precedents. The core legal question was whether the absence of detailed protocol descriptions in a forensic report invalidates the prosecution's case when the tests, protocol name, and positive results are stated. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the report sufficiently specified the tests applied, protocol, and results, and that any ambiguity could have been resolved by invoking Section 510 Cr.P.C. The Court reaffirmed that minor omissions in protocol details do not automatically destroy the evidentiary value of a forensic report where reliable recovery and safe custody are independently proven.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission of detailed descriptions of forensic protocols in a Punjab Forensic Science Agency report invalidates a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can an ambiguity in a forensic analyst's report regarding testing protocols be resolved by the trial court under the proviso to Section 510 of the Criminal Procedure Code?
  • Does a forensic report satisfy evidentiary requirements under narcotic laws if it specifies the test applied, protocol, and result, even if protocol details are not elaborated?
  Read full judgment →