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.

• Shad Nabi vs The State2021 PHC 222 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-28
  post-arrest bailmurderabsconsionrule of consistencyprohibitory limbcriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  The accused-petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 198 dated 15.07.2016 under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Jarma, District Kohat, involving allegations of firing and murdering the complainant's brother. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on grounds of further inquiry, considering the acquittal of a co-accused with a similar role and alleged discrepancies in the medical and ocular evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was directly nominated in the FIR, supported by forensic science laboratory reports indicating multiple weapons used, and that his case was distinguishable from the acquitted co-accused because the petitioner had absconded during the trial. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, ruling that the petitioner was prima facie connected to an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that an absconding accused cannot claim parity for bail purposes with a co-accused who faced trial and was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who absconded during trial can claim the benefit of parity for bail based on the acquittal of a co-accused with a similar role?
  • Does direct nomination in an FIR coupled with corroborative forensic evidence attract the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a tentative assessment of the material sufficient at the bail stage to establish a prima facie connection of the accused with the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir vs The State2021 SHC 262 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryunlicensed pistolfoistationprohibitory clausemain murder case
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application under Section 497 Cr.P.C. arises out of a case registered against the applicant following the alleged recovery of an unlicensed .30 bore pistol by the police, which was purportedly used in the murder of a police constable. The applicant contended that he was innocent, that the weapon was foisted upon him, that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., and that he had already been granted bail in the main murder case while remaining in custody for over six months. The State opposed the bail on the ground that the recovered firearm was connected to a murder. The High Court observed that the allegation of foisted recovery along with the applicant's prior grant of bail in the main murder case and six-month period of custody brought the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application and granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to furnishing a surety bond.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who has been granted bail in a main murder case is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry in a connected case of recovering an unlicensed weapon?
  • Does the alleged foistation of a weapon combined with prior bail in the primary offence constitute sufficient ground for bail under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs The State2021 P S c (Crl.) 157, 2021 SCMR 198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-09
  narcoticsdrug traffickingofficial witnessespublic witnessesforensic reportlife imprisonmentleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner and his wife for possession of 15.600 kg of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the credibility of official witnesses in the absence of independent public witnesses, the reliability of a forensic report dispatched with alleged delay, and the probability of the accused using his family as a cover for drug trafficking. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of official witnesses, if found straightforward and confidence-inspiring, is sufficient for conviction, noting that public reluctance to testify is a common social reality. The Court further ruled that the forensic report conclusively established the narcotic nature of the substance, especially as the petitioner failed to challenge the analyst during the trial. Finding the prosecution's case proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Court declined leave to appeal and maintained the convictions.

  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed vs The State2021 YLR 1392 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-15
  expeditious trialfundamental rightstransfer of casesAnti-Terrorism Courtmedical facilities for prisonersunder-trial prisonerright to fair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by an accused person who has been in custody since March 2015 in connection with several criminal cases pending before an Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question was whether the prolonged detention of the accused, coupled with the vacancy of the presiding officer's court and the accused's deteriorating health, necessitated the transfer of the cases to another court and a directive for medical treatment. The Court held that the right to an expeditious and fair trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. Consequently, the Court ordered the withdrawal of the cases from the vacant Anti-Terrorism Court and their transfer to another Anti-Terrorism Court for expedited disposal. Furthermore, the Court directed the prison authorities to provide necessary medical facilities to the applicant, emphasizing that the object of criminal prosecution is not to punish under-trial prisoners indefinitely. The principle laid down is that the judiciary must ensure timely justice to prevent the erosion of public confidence and to protect the fundamental rights of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right to an expeditious and fair trial constitute a fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can a High Court transfer cases from a vacant Anti-Terrorism Court to another court to ensure timely disposal?
  • Is the state obligated to provide medical treatment to an under-trial prisoner suffering from a chronic illness?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed vs Muhammad Muzamil Hussain and another2021 PLD Balochistan 79 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-05Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed Memon & others vs Parvez Ahmed Memon & others2021 SHC 1322 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-20Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed etc vs The Auditor General of Pakistan & 3 others2021 IHC 76 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-25Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed Arif and another vs Rizwan Riaz and 2 others2021 PLD Sindh 286 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-19Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed Arif & another vs Rizwan Riaz & others2021 SHC 468 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1398 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-20
  criminal appealcompromiseQisas and Diyatacquittalmurderminor legal heirscompensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, along with a connected revision petition for enhancement of compensation. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was filed reporting a genuine compromise between the convicts and all the legal heirs of the deceased, including safeguards for the minor heirs regarding Diyat. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be set aside based on a voluntary and verified compromise between the parties. The Lahore High Court held that since the compromise was genuine, free from coercion, and safeguarded the interests of minors, and as the appellants were not hardened criminals or involved in an honor killing, the compromise must be accepted. The court laid down the principle that a genuine compromise in a murder case, where legal heirs waive Qisas and Diyat adequately, warrants the acquittal of the convicts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code be set aside on the basis of a compromise between the convicts and the legal heirs of the deceased?
  • How is a compromise verified when some of the legal heirs of the deceased are minors?
  • What constitutes valid waiver of Qisas and Diyat by legal heirs in a criminal appeal involving murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad Hussain vs The State, etc2021 LHC 126 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-26
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clauserecovery of amounttentative assessmentpunishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused-petitioner in F.I.R. No. 16 dated 08.01.2021 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Tarnol, Islamabad, concerning the dishonour of a cheque worth Rs. 26,43,200/-. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, investigation is complete, and bail cannot be used as a punishment. The Islamabad High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The court held that since the offense carries a maximum punishment of three years and does not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 Cr.P.C., and as the investigation has concluded with no further requirement of the accused, withholding bail as a punitive measure is impermissible. Furthermore, Section 489-F P.P.C. is designed to determine guilt rather than act as a recovery mechanism for outstanding dues.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted when an offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 intended to be used as a mechanism for the recovery of outstanding financial amounts?
  • Can bail be withheld as a measure of punishment during pre-trial detention?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaban Khuda Bakhsh vs Hatima Ameer and 2 others2021 CLC 1807 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-13Read full judgment →
• Shaban Akhtar and another vs The State through Prosecutor General PunjabPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 291, 2021 SCMR 395, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-20
  abduction for ransomhomicideproof beyond reasonable doubtlast seen evidenceforensic evidenceacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of Shaban Akhtar for abduction and homicide, originally sentenced to death by the Anti-Terrorism Court, later commuted to life imprisonment by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the acquittal of his co-accused on identical evidence and the lack of forensic corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from significant evidentiary gaps, including the failure to produce digital forensic data to link the accused to ransom calls, and the unreliable nature of the 'last seen' evidence provided by a partisan witness. Furthermore, the court noted that the timeline of the crime, the ransom demand, and the medical evidence regarding the time of death were inconsistent. Emphasizing that conviction requires proof beyond doubt rather than mere suspicion, the Court ruled that maintaining the conviction was unsafe, especially given the acquittal of the co-accused on the same evidence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce available digital or forensic data regarding telephonic communication invoke adverse consequences under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's evidence is inconsistent with the established timeline of the crime and the medical evidence regarding the time of death?
  • Is it safe to maintain a conviction against one accused when a co-accused has been acquitted on the same set of evidence?
  • Does 'proof beyond doubt' in criminal cases permit conviction based on moral satisfaction or suspicion?
  Read full judgment →
• Sewa Khan vs The State2021 MLD 1364 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-14
  Criminal appealIllegal armsBallistic expertBurden of proofAcquittalFirearm recoveryProsecution evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(e) of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, by the trial court, which sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment for illegal possession of a firearm. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the guilt of the accused regarding the illegal possession and the functionality of the recovered weapon. The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court reasoned that the prosecution did not produce medical evidence regarding the alleged firing incident, failed to recover empty casings from the scene, and did not prove the appellant lacked a valid license for the weapon. Crucially, the Court emphasized that the failure to send the recovered weapon to a ballistic expert to ascertain its functional condition rendered the conviction unsustainable, as a non-functional weapon cannot support a conviction under the Arms Ordinance. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt firmly and irresistibly through concrete evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prosecution bear the burden of proving that an accused person did not possess a valid license for a recovered firearm?
  • Is a ballistic expert report required to establish the functionality of a weapon in a case involving illegal possession of arms?
  • Can a conviction under the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 be sustained if the recovered weapon is not proven to be in working condition?
  Read full judgment →
• Sepcoiii Electric Constructions Co. Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan etc2021 LHC 7689, 2022 PCTLR 1672, 2022 CLD 1035, 2022 PLD Lahore 628 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-13
  bank guaranteeconstitutional jurisdictiontender procurementcontractual disputewrit petitionbid securityencashment of bank guarantee
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the dismissal of a writ petition concerning the encashment of a bank guarantee by the National Transmission and Despatch Company (NTDC) following a tender procurement dispute. The appellant, SEPCOIII, participated in a tender but failed to provide an unconditional credit line after two financial institutions annulled their commitments. The core legal question was whether the High Court, exercising constitutional jurisdiction, could intervene in a contractual dispute involving disputed facts and whether the appellant’s failure to maintain bid conditions justified the encashment of the bank guarantee. The Court held that the appellant’s failure to provide the required financial instruments effectively constituted a withdrawal from the bid. Crucially, the Court ruled that bank guarantees are autonomous contracts independent of the underlying agreement, requiring banks to honor them upon demand. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolving complex, disputed questions of fact arising from contractual obligations, which must instead be adjudicated through ordinary civil litigation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to establish grounds for constitutional intervention.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to resolve disputed questions of fact arising from a contractual dispute?
  • Are the obligations arising under a bank guarantee independent of the underlying contract between the parties?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable for the enforcement of contractual rights and obligations?
  Read full judgment →
• Senior General Manager/CEO, Pakistan Railways Headquarters, Lahore and2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 416, 2021 SCP 160, 2021 PSC 1539, 2021 SCMR · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-19
  service appealquantum of penaltymisconductdepartmental inquiryrailway safetydisciplinary actiondismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that modified a railway employee's penalty from dismissal to compulsory retirement following a catastrophic train collision. The respondent, an engine driver, was dismissed after a departmental inquiry found him responsible for a collision that resulted in significant financial loss and the loss of four lives. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal erred in interfering with the quantum of penalty imposed by the departmental authority, given the respondent's admitted negligence and failure to adhere to safety signals. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal lacked valid grounds to mitigate the penalty. The Court observed that the respondent had failed to substantiate his defenses regarding reliance on a gate man's hand signal or a change in signal aspect, and that his own reply to the charge-sheet effectively admitted to moving the train while the signal was at danger. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and restored the original penalty of dismissal, emphasizing that serious misconduct resulting in loss of life and property warrants strict disciplinary action.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service tribunal interfere with the quantum of penalty imposed by a departmental authority in cases of gross negligence?
  • Does an employee's failure to substantiate a defense regarding safety signal compliance justify the upholding of a dismissal order?
  • Is a service tribunal permitted to mitigate a penalty for misconduct when the employee has admitted to the factual basis of the charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Senior Air Hostess Samina Saleem Qureshi vs Pakistan International2021 LHC 8221, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 642 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-23
  master and servant rulerejection of plaintwrongful dismissalsuit for declarationstatutory corporationterms and conditions of servicecivil suit for damages
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the concurrent orders of the courts below rejecting the petitioner's plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner, an air hostess for Pakistan International Airlines, was dismissed from service for submitting a fake degree. She subsequently filed a suit for declaration challenging her dismissal. The core legal question was whether a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 is maintainable for an employee of a statutory corporation lacking statutory service rules. The Court held that in the absence of statutory rules, the relationship between the corporation and its employee is governed by the master-servant rule. Consequently, an unwilling employer cannot be compelled to retain an employee, and the employee cannot seek a declaration for the subsistence of service. The Court affirmed that the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved employee in such circumstances is a suit for damages, not a suit for declaration. As the petitioner failed to claim damages, the rejection of the plaint was upheld, and the revision petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 maintainable for an employee of a statutory corporation not governed by statutory service rules?
  • Does the master-servant rule preclude an employee of a statutory corporation from seeking a declaration for the subsistence of service upon dismissal?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for an employee of a statutory corporation who claims wrongful dismissal in the absence of statutory service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Securities And Exchange Commission Of Pakistan vs Nadeem H. Shaikh and others2021 CLD 381, 2021 SCMR 343 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-27
  dismissal for non-prosecutionprocedural complianceappellate jurisdictiondue diligenceCompanies Ordinancejudicial time
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as an appeal against an order dated 21.1.2009 passed by the Islamabad High Court in Criminal Original No. 73 of 2008, which initiated proceedings under section 282-K of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, against two respondents while exonerating others. The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan challenged the exoneration of the majority of respondents. Following the grant of leave to appeal in 2010, the appellant consistently failed to provide the necessary addresses for the respondents despite repeated court directions and opportunities. By February 2020, the Court issued a final warning that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the appeal. Upon the hearing, the appellant's counsel failed to provide the required information, offering inconsistent explanations and requesting substitute service, which the Court rejected. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's persistent failure to comply with procedural directions warranted dismissal. The Court affirmed the principle that the law assists the vigilant and that judicial time and public expense must not be wasted by parties failing to pursue their cases with due diligence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be dismissed for non-compliance with court directions regarding the provision of respondent addresses?
  • Does the law assist a party that fails to pursue its case with due diligence?
  • Is a request for substitute service permissible when the appellant has failed to comply with prior court orders to provide respondent addresses?
  Read full judgment →
• Secunderabad Cantonment Board vs M/s B. Ramachandraiah & Sons2021 SCInd 152 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-03-15Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad and others vs Dealing Officer2021 PTD (Trib.) 2045 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2021-09-22Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad vs Imtiz Ahmad Malik, Director Anti-Corruption, Establishment Sahiwal and others2021 KLR Criminal Cases 153, 2021 PLC (C.S. ) 480, 2021 P SC 599, 2021 SCMR 166, 2021 SCP 2 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-27
  Police Service of Pakistanencadrementretrospective senioritypro forma promotioncivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether an officer encadred in the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP) from a provincial police cadre can claim retrospective seniority and encadrement based on a pro forma promotion received in their previous rank. The core legal question concerned the prospective versus retrospective nature of encadrement and appointments into the PSP under the relevant service rules. The Supreme Court held that appointments and encadrement into the PSP from provincial cadres take effect prospectively from the date actual encadrement is effected, and retrospective effect cannot be granted for the purpose of claiming seniority over other groups. The key principle laid down is that while inter se seniority among provincially encadred officers may be determined under Rule 11(2)(c) of the Police Service of Pakistan (Composition, Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1985, the foundational encadrement itself is strictly prospective, and judgments of the Supreme Court on this point are binding under Article 189 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether encadrement and appointment into the Police Service of Pakistan from a provincial cadre can be made with retrospective effect?
  • Does Rule 11(2)(c) of the Police Service of Pakistan (Composition, Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1985 permit determining seniority between initial appointees and provincially encadred officers?
  • Is a judgment of the Supreme Court regarding the prospective nature of PSP encadrement binding on service tribunals under Article 189 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary To Government Of The Punjab, School Education Department, Lahore and others vs Syed Zakir Ali2022 SCMR 951, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-21
  wilful absence from dutyservice appealdeputationex-pakistan leavedepartmental inquirydismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which partially allowed a service appeal by setting aside a dismissal order and ordering a de novo inquiry into the respondent's alleged wilful absence from duty. The core legal question was whether a regular departmental inquiry is mandatory under the PEEDA Act, 2006, when a civil servant explicitly admits to prolonged unauthorised absence from duty and gainful employment abroad. The Supreme Court held that where the factum of wilful absence from duty is admitted by the employee—in this case, remaining absent for over sixteen years while teaching in Saudi Arabia—no regular or de novo inquiry is required, as settled by precedent. The Court established the principle that an admitted, undisputed wilful absence from service obviates the necessity of a formal inquiry, and a dismissal order can take effect from the date the unauthorized absence commenced.

  Questions settled

  • Is a regular departmental inquiry required when the fact of wilful absence from duty is admitted by the employee?
  • Can a civil servant claim entitlement to a de novo inquiry regarding absence from duty when employment abroad is conceded?
  • Whether a dismissal order for wilful absence from service can take effect from the date the absence originally commenced?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Local Government, Election Rural Development, KPK etc vs Muhammad Tariq Khan2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 442, 2021 SCP 272, 2021 PSC 1266, 2021 SCMR · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  contract employeesproject employeesregularizationres judicatadiscriminationtermination of servicecivil appeals
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated civil appeal arises from the termination of contract and temporary employees of the Provincial Urban Development Board in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The core legal questions involve whether project employees possess a vested right to regularization upon project completion, whether the principle of discrimination applies to re-appointment when relief was restricted to parties in prior litigation, and whether subsequent writ petitions are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The Supreme Court held that contract and project employees have no vested right to regularization or continuity beyond the project tenure unless appointed via regular recruitment against sanctioned vacancies. Furthermore, successive petitions concerning the same termination are barred by res judicata, and selective re-appointment of some individuals does not constitute actionable discrimination where prior relief was strictly confined to specific litigants. The key principle laid down is that temporary project employees cannot claim regularization upon project closure, and repetitious litigation after a matter has attained finality is barred.

  Questions settled

  • Do temporary or project-based employees have a vested right to be retained in service or regularized after the expiry of the project?
  • Whether subsequent writ petitions challenging the same termination order are barred by the principle of res judicata?
  • Can a claim of discrimination be sustained for the failure to re-appoint an employee when prior judicial relief was strictly restricted to specific parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Health, Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, having his2021 SC AJK 38, 2022 MLD 243 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-08-16Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Province of Sindh & 03 others2021 SHC 392 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-02Read full judgment →
• Secretary Elementary & Secondary Education Department, Government of KPK, Peshawar and others vs Noor-ul-Amin2021 SCP 150, 2021 SCMR 959, 2022 PSC 359, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-22
  service lawunauthorized absencedepartmental inquirypenalty modificationcompulsory retirementremoval from serviceservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a service appeal filed by a Primary School Teacher (PST) against his removal from service due to unauthorized absence following the expiry of his ex-Pakistan leave. The KPK Service Tribunal had partially allowed the respondent's appeal, converting the penalty of removal from service to compulsory retirement, citing the lack of a regular inquiry and the respondent's ten-year service record. The Supreme Court of Pakistan set aside the Tribunal's modification of the penalty. The Court held that where the fact of unauthorized absence is undisputed, a regular departmental inquiry is not mandatory, as there are no disputed facts requiring investigation. Furthermore, the Court rejected the Tribunal's reasoning that long service justifies leniency for prolonged unauthorized absence. The Court emphasized that an employee cannot use their length of service as a license to abandon their duties, particularly when evidence suggests the employee was engaged in other activities abroad and lacked interest in continuing their employment. Consequently, the original penalty of removal from service was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Is a regular departmental inquiry mandatory when the fact of an employee's unauthorized absence is undisputed?
  • Can an employee's length of service be used as a ground to mitigate a penalty for prolonged unauthorized absence?
  • Does the absence of a regular inquiry in cases of undisputed misconduct invalidate a disciplinary penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Council Of Islamic Ideology, Azad Government Of The State _c47ba3c12021 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 30 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Secretary Communication And Works Department, Government Of Balochistan, Quetta and another vs Abdul Majeed and 7 others2021 CLC 1127 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-16Read full judgment →
• Secretary Agriculture, Livestock & Cooperation Department, Peshawar & others vs Anees Ahmad2021 SCP 214, 2021 PSC 1378, 2021 SCMR 1266, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-08
  service lawpro forma promotionDepartmental Promotion Committeeright to be considered for promotionsuperannuationadministrative delayservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a service appeal regarding the denial of promotion to a government servant who retired before his Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting. The respondent, an Office Assistant, was eligible for promotion to Superintendent (BPS-17) and his case was prepared in a working paper before his retirement. However, the DPC meeting was adjourned and subsequently held after the respondent's retirement, at which point the DPC refused to consider his promotion solely due to his superannuation. The core legal question was whether a government servant, whose case for promotion had matured and was placed before the DPC while in service, can be denied consideration for promotion simply because the DPC meeting occurred after their retirement. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while there is no vested right to promotion, there is a legal right to be considered for it. The Court ruled that the DPC's failure to consider the respondent's case due to administrative delays constituted a miscarriage of justice, establishing that a department cannot rely on its own non-vigilance to deny a rightful consideration for promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Does a government servant have a vested right to promotion?
  • Can a Departmental Promotion Committee refuse to consider a candidate for promotion solely because they retired after the case was placed before the committee?
  • Are Service Tribunals competent to review a Departmental Promotion Committee's failure to consider a government servant for promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary (M-v) Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad vs Zeenat Bangash2021 SCP 166, 2021 PSC 1399, 2021 SCMR 1151, 2021 PCTLR 1444 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-29
  deputation allowancecivil servicelimitationfinancial claimrule of consistencyretrospective effect
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arose from a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that granted deputation allowance to the respondent. The respondent, a Postal Group officer, served on deputation in the Federal Board of Revenue from 1994 to 2001 but was denied deputation allowance. The appellant argued that the claim was barred by limitation and that the relevant Office Memorandum dated 04.07.2007 applied only to fresh cases without retrospective effect. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Office Memorandum dated 04.07.2007, which implemented earlier judicial decisions, applied to both old and fresh cases of deputation. Denying the allowance to the respondent while granting it to similarly situated colleagues would violate the rule of consistency and Article 25 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court ruled that because the matter was of a financial nature, the limitation period did not adversely affect the respondent's claim. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Office Memorandum granting deputation allowance applies retrospectively to older cases of deputation under the rule of consistency?
  • Does the limitation period bar a civil servant's claim for deputation allowance if the claim is of a financial nature?
  • Is it discriminatory under Article 25 of the Constitution to deny deputation allowance to one civil servant while granting it to other similarly situated employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Seamax Marine Services vs The Ministry of Maritime Affairs & two [02]2021 SHC 1066 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-14Read full judgment →
• Seamax Marine Services through Authorized Attorney/Partner vs Ministry2022 PLD Sindh 521 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-14Read full judgment →
• Sayyed Sohail Hasan Gilani vs Election Commission Of Pakistan through Secretary Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others2021 PLJ Lahore 552 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-04Read full judgment →
• Sawera Ikram vs Amir Naveed2021 LHC 7744, 2022 PLJ Lahore 608 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-18Read full judgment →
• Sawan Masih alias Bodi vs The State and another2021 YLR 125 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-05
  blasphemycapital sentencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealfalse accusationappreciation of evidenceSection 295-C PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged blasphemy. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the significant inconsistencies in the ocular account and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the FIR's registration. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's evidence lacked judicial certainty and credibility. The Court observed that the FIR was registered after a substantial delay, following a violent incident involving the complainant and witnesses, suggesting a motive to frame the appellant to deflect from their own criminal liability. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged blasphemous remarks were inserted into the record only after Supreme Court intervention. Emphasizing that capital cases require strict scrutiny and that the benefit of doubt is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained in a capital case where the prosecution evidence is inconsistent and lacks judicial certainty?
  • Is evidence that was not put to an accused during their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 admissible against them?
  • Does the registration of an FIR after a significant delay, following a separate violent incident involving the complainant, create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sawab Khan vs The Vice Chancellor Agriculture University, Khyber2021 PHC 112, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 217 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-23
  service lawpersonal gradeupgradationpromotionwrit jurisdictionstatutory interpretationeligibility criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the refusal of the Agriculture University, Peshawar, to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director Sports (BPS-18). The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having been granted a "personal grade" in BPS-17 as Assistant Director Physical Education, was entitled to promotion to BPS-18 based on his length of service and experience. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the grant of a "personal grade" or "upgradation" is distinct from a formal promotion. The court clarified that personal grade is person-specific and does not equate to a promotion to a higher post, which requires adherence to the specific selection procedures and criteria mandated by the University Statutes. Consequently, the petitioner failed to satisfy the eligibility requirements for the higher post. The court reaffirmed the principle that where the law prescribes a specific mode for an action, it must be performed in that manner, and what cannot be done directly cannot be achieved indirectly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of a personal grade or upgradation constitute a formal promotion to a higher post?
  • Can an employee claim promotion to a higher grade based solely on a personal grade without undergoing the prescribed selection process?
  • Is there a legal distinction between promotion and upgradation in service law?
  Read full judgment →
• Satpal vs State of Haryana2021 SCInd 122 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-05-03
  dying declarationmurder convictionevidentiary valuetutored statementcriminal appealburn injuriesjudicial magistrate
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, where the appellant challenged the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. The core legal question was whether the dying declaration recorded by a Judicial Magistrate could be relied upon as the basis for conviction, despite allegations that it was tutored by the deceased's family members present at the hospital. The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration was natural, credible, and corroborated by other prosecution witnesses. The Court emphasized that the mere presence of relatives at the hospital does not invalidate a dying declaration, especially when the Magistrate ensures they are excluded during the recording process. Furthermore, the Court noted the appellant's failure to examine any defense witnesses to support his alternative theory of suicide. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction, affirming that the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the dying declaration and supporting testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration be discarded solely because the deceased's relatives were present in the hospital at the time of the incident?
  • Is the testimony of a Judicial Magistrate regarding the recording of a dying declaration sufficient to establish its authenticity?
  • Does the failure of an accused to examine defense witnesses under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 weaken their defense in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sartaj vs The State2021 MLD 963 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-17
  murderdeath sentence commutationunproven motivestrangulationocular evidencecriminal appealcapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the appellant's wife. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction and whether the death sentence remained appropriate given the prosecution's failure to establish the alleged motive. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular evidence credible and corroborated by medical evidence confirming death by strangulation. However, the Court held that because the prosecution failed to prove the motive and the real cause of the occurrence remained shrouded in mystery due to suppression by both parties, the extreme penalty of death was unwarranted. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal regarding the conviction but allowed it to the extent of the sentence, commuting the death penalty to imprisonment for life. The judgment reaffirms the principle that when a specific motive is asserted but not proven, such failure may react against the imposition of the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive for a murder warrant the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the ocular evidence is corroborated by medical evidence of strangulation?
  • Is the death sentence mandatory in a murder case where the real cause of the occurrence remains shrouded in mystery?
  Read full judgment →
• Sartaj Singh vs State of Haryana & Anr. Etc2021 SCInd 156 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-03-15
  Section 319 CrPCsummoning of additional accusedprima facie caseexamination-in-chiefmini-trialinjured witnesscriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a High Court order that quashed a trial court's decision to summon additional accused persons under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The appellant, an injured eye-witness, had sought to summon private respondents who were named in the FIR but excluded from the police charge-sheet. The trial court allowed the application based on the appellant's deposition. The High Court, however, set aside this order, reasoning that the witness's testimony was merely a reiteration of the FIR and that the injuries sustained were inconsistent with the allegations, effectively conducting a mini-trial. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by appreciating evidence on merits at the summoning stage. The Court reaffirmed that Section 319 CrPC empowers courts to summon additional accused based on examination-in-chief alone, without waiting for cross-examination, provided a prima facie case exists. The Court held that the trial court's discretion should not be interfered with unless the summoning order is legally unsustainable, emphasizing that the summoning stage is not the time for a mini-trial or detailed evidentiary assessment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC to summon an additional accused based solely on the examination-in-chief of a witness?
  • Is it permissible for a High Court to conduct a mini-trial or appreciate evidence on merits while deciding a revision petition against an order summoning an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC?
  • Must a court wait for the cross-examination of a witness before exercising its power to summon an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC?
  • What is the degree of satisfaction required for a court to invoke its power under Section 319 CrPC to summon an additional accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sartaj and eight others vs Mst. Waheeda Gul &another2021 PHC 70 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-15Read full judgment →
• Sartaj and 8 others vs Mst. Waheeda Gul and another2022 YLR 181 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-15Read full judgment →
• Sarosh Sikander and others vs Guardian Judge, Lahore and others2021 YLR 1989 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-23Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz alias Bhoora vs The State2021 YLR 836 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-07
  kidnapping for ransompolice encounterbenefit of the doubthostile witnessanti-terrorismidentificationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under section 365-A/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, along with other allied offenses, resulting in sentences of life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency and reliability of the identification of the accused, the presence of credible evidence linking him to the kidnapping for ransom and the subsequent police encounter, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and participation of the appellant, noting that he was not named in the FIR, the primary eyewitness/abductee did not identify him in court and was declared hostile, and no incriminating material connected him to the crime or the ransom call. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, laid down the principle that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and allowed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted for kidnapping for ransom when he is not named in the FIR and the primary abductee-witness fails to identify him during the trial?
  • Does the failure of prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and abductees, to implicate the accused warrant the extension of the benefit of the doubt?
  • Whether the mere recovery of abductees and rescue site evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction without a credible link to the specific accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ali vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Information and Broadcasting & 10 Others2022 IHC 224 · Islamabad High Court
  writ jurisdictionmaster and servantnon-statutory regulationsservice mattersmaintainabilityPEMRAconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), filed a writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Director (PS-09) and challenging an office order as discriminatory. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable by an employee of a statutory body to enforce service regulations that lack statutory backing. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable and dismissed it. It reasoned that the PEMRA (Employees Service) Regulations, 2021, were neither framed nor approved by the Federal Government, rendering them non-statutory in nature. Consequently, the relationship between PEMRA and its employees is governed by the principle of "master and servant." The Court affirmed the established legal principle that where service regulations are non-statutory, an employee cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to enforce terms and conditions of service. As the petition was found non-maintainable on jurisdictional grounds, the Court declined to address the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable by an employee of a statutory body to enforce non-statutory service regulations?
  • Does the relationship between PEMRA and its employees fall under the principle of master and servant?
  • Are the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Employees Service) Regulations, 2021, considered statutory rules?
  • Must a court decide the question of its own jurisdiction before addressing the merits of a case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmed vs The State2021 MLD 599 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-30
  narcotics possessionControl of Narcotic Substances Actburden of proofpolice evidenceSection 103 CrPCcriminal appealsafe custody of narcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Jail Appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the possession of 17 kilograms of heroin, punishable under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of police testimony, the impact of the absence of independent witnesses, and the burden of proof regarding the accused's knowledge of the narcotics found in his vehicle. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It affirmed that police evidence is reliable absent proof of enmity. Crucially, the Court held that under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, once the recovery of narcotics from the accused's vehicle is established, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption of knowledge. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the requirement for independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is excluded for narcotics offenses by Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of independent witnesses invalidate a recovery under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, applicable to offenses under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, once the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle is established?
  • Can police officials be considered reliable witnesses in a narcotics case in the absence of proven enmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmad, etc vs Muhammad Maalik2021 [M] C L R 1466 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• Sarfaraz and 6 others vs Abdul Ghafoor and 3 others2021 MLD 1219 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-18Read full judgment →
• Sardaran Bibi etc vs Rehma etc2021 LHC 6784, 2022 YLR 1536 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-11Read full judgment →
• Sardar Talib Hassan Nakai vs Returning Officer Na-140, etc2021 [M] C L R 1505 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-27Read full judgment →
• Sardar Rehman Jameel vs Muhammad Nadeem etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1890 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-06
  appeal against acquittalfraudforgerypower of attorneymisreading of evidencecriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent, Muhammad Naeem, by the Trial Court in a case involving allegations of fraud and forgery under Sections 468, 420, 471, and 424 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the respondent misused a revoked power of attorney to fraudulently transfer property. The core legal question was whether the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal was based on a misreading or non-reading of evidence, thereby warranting interference by the High Court. Upon reviewing the record, the High Court found the Trial Court’s reasoning to be cogent, persuasive, and well-justified, noting that the prosecution failed to establish grounds for overturning the acquittal. Furthermore, the Court observed that the respondent had endured the ordeal of the trial since 1999. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal judgment unless it is shown to be based on a misreading or non-reading of material evidence, or results in a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  • Does the misuse of a revoked power of attorney to transfer property constitute fraud under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the long duration of a criminal trial a relevant factor for an appellate court when considering an appeal against acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Ramzan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and four others2021 PHC 358 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Ashraf D. Baloch (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs National2021 CLC 290 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-12Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad and others vs Imam Bakhsh (decd) thr. LRs and others2021 PLJ SC 233, 2021 SCP 20, 2021 SCMR 391, KLR 2022 Supreme Court Cases · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-15
  sale mutationrevenue proceedingsfraud and misrepresentationsummary jurisdictionconcurrent findingsbona fide purchaserregistered sale deedcivil court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court that reversed concurrent findings of the courts below and dismissed the appellants' suit seeking the setting aside of orders passed by revenue authorities and the cancellation of a registered sale deed. The core legal question was whether a Deputy District Officer (Revenue) has the power in summary proceedings to cancel a sale mutation on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. The Supreme Court held that revenue proceedings are summary in nature and complex questions of fact and law, such as allegations of fraud, fall within the exclusive domain of civil courts, making the DDO(R)'s cancellation of the mutation illegal and without jurisdiction. Furthermore, the subsequent purchasers could not claim the status of bona fide purchasers without notice. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that revenue authorities cannot adjudicate upon pleas of fraud through summary proceedings, and a sale deed executed following an illegal cancellation of mutation cannot survive once the original mutation is revived.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Deputy District Officer (Revenue) have the power to cancel a sale mutation on the ground of fraud through summary proceedings?
  • Whether complex questions of fact and allegations of fraud fall within the exclusive domain of civil courts rather than revenue authorities?
  • Can a subsequent purchaser of property claim to be a bona fide purchaser without notice when they acquired the land immediately after the cancellation of a mutation with knowledge of the dispute?
  • Do High Courts possess the justification to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in revisional jurisdiction under the circumstances of this case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan and another vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 43 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-21
  fugitive from justiceright of audiencequashment of proceedingsnon-bailable warrantsabuse of processcriminal proceduredue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a Judicial Magistrate in Harnai, following the dismissal of the petitioners' application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether a person who avoids appearance before a court and evades arrest is entitled to a hearing or audience in a court of law. The Court held that the petition could not be entertained because the petitioners were fugitives from justice. Relying on established precedents, the Court determined that an individual seeking the aid of the court or challenging judicial orders must first submit to the due process of law. By repeatedly failing to appear despite the issuance of non-bailable warrants under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the petitioners had lost their right of audience. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that a fugitive from justice cannot invoke the court's jurisdiction to seek relief while simultaneously evading its lawful process.

  Questions settled

  • Is a person who avoids appearance before a court and evades arrest entitled to be heard in a petition for quashment of proceedings?
  • Does a fugitive from justice have the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge an order of a trial court?
  • Can a court entertain a petition filed by an accused who has failed to surrender to the process of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khaliq uz Zaman, etc vs Secretary Ministry of NHSRC, etc2021 IHC 112 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-08Read full judgment →
• Sardar Javaid Sharif, Advocate,High Court Of Aj&K and others vs Government Of The State Of Azad Jammu And Kashmir through Chief Secretary and others2021 YLR 470 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-07-17
  judicial appointmentconsultative processindependence of judiciaryultra viresde facto doctrineconstitutional interpretationAzad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals challenged the appointment of five High Court Judges in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, alleging violations of constitutional provisions regarding the consultative process. The core legal question was whether the appointments satisfied the mandatory requirement of "consultation" under Article 43(2-A) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974. The Supreme Court held that the consultative process was fundamentally flawed, as it was neither simultaneous, meaningful, nor consensus-oriented, and relied on defective documentation. The Court ruled that the appointments were ultra vires and set aside, though it validated the judges' past acts under the de facto doctrine. The key principle laid down is that "consultation" for judicial appointments must be effective, meaningful, purposive, and simultaneous, involving both the Chief Justice of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and the Chief Justice of the High Court. The Court emphasized that the appointing authority cannot bypass these requirements, and the judiciary retains the power to scrutinize the consultative process to ensure constitutional compliance and the independence of the judiciary.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'consultation' in Article 43(2-A) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, require a simultaneous consultative process with both the Chief Justice of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and the Chief Justice of the High Court?
  • Can the court scrutinize the consultative process for judicial appointments to determine if it meets constitutional standards?
  • Does the de facto doctrine validate the acts performed by judges whose appointments are subsequently declared ultra vires?
  • Is a summary prepared by the executive sufficient proof of proper consultation if it lacks evidence of meaningful, consensus-oriented deliberation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Imtiaz Khan vs Commissioner Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi and 52021 PLJ Lahore 176 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-15Read full judgment →
• Sardar Attique ur Rehman vs The State & 05 others2021 P Cr. L J 1216, 2021 PHC 44, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-02
  cancellation of FIRpolice reportnatural justiceaudi alteram partemjudicial discretionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought the annulment of an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate whereby a criminal case registered under sections 380, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code was cancelled upon a police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved whether a Magistrate can mechanically cancel an FIR by merely agreeing with the police without recording independent reasons, and whether a complainant must be granted a right of audience under the principles of natural justice before such cancellation. The Peshawar High Court held that the power under section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not arbitrary, requires conscious application of mind with independent reasons, and cannot be exercised without adhering to the audi alteram partem rule. The court laid down the principle that Magistrates must act judicially rather than mechanically follow police opinions, and that principles of natural justice and the right of hearing must be observed in all proceedings affecting the rights of parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate can cancel a criminal case by simply agreeing with the police opinion without recording independent reasons?
  • Does section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confer an arbitrary power upon a Magistrate?
  • Whether the principles of natural justice and the right of audience must be extended to a complainant before cancelling an FIR?
  • Is a Magistrate required to act judicially when considering a police report for the cancellation of a registered criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali vs Abdul Ghafoor and others2021 LHC 7380, 2022 CLC 1925, 2022 PLJ Lahore 702 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-10Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali Shan vs Mather Niaz Rana, Chief Secretary Azad Jammu And Kashmir, Muzaffarbad and 2 others2021 P Cr. L J 171 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-07-01
  review petitionSupreme Court Rulesadvocate certificatecontempt of courtprocedural requirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition was filed by the petitioner in person against the judgment of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir which had consigned a contempt of court application to the record upon implementation of the original judgment. The office raised an objection that the petition lacked the mandatory certificate and compliance required under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978. The core legal question was whether a review petition can be filed directly by a petitioner in person without the requisite certificate and representation by the advocate who appeared at the original hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that under Order XLVI Rules 4 and 6 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, a review petition must be drawn by the advocate who appeared at the original hearing and must be accompanied by a mandatory certificate in the form of a reasoned opinion. The key principle laid down is that review petitions cannot be competently filed by parties in person or without fulfilling the strict procedural prerequisites regarding advocate certification and representation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a review petition be filed by a petitioner in person without an advocate's certificate?
  • Is it mandatory for the advocate signing a review petition to provide a reasoned certificate under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978?
  • Can an advocate other than the one who appeared at the original hearing draw a review application without special leave of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Abdul Rehman vs Abdul Kareem Khetran and others2021 SCMR 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-06
  election petitionmaintainabilityverification of pleadingsmandatory statutory provisionsre-pollwitness examinationaffidavit evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against the judgment of the Election Tribunal, Balochistan, which set aside the election of the appellant from PB-08 Barkhan and ordered a re-poll. The core legal question was whether an election petition is maintainable when the petitioner fails to personally verify the petition and its annexures, instead delegating this mandatory statutory requirement to an attorney, and whether an affidavit sworn by an attorney on behalf of the petitioner satisfies the requirements for evidence under the applicable procedural laws. The Supreme Court held that the election petition was non-maintainable due to the petitioner's failure to comply with the mandatory verification requirements under the Elections Act, 2017. The Court emphasized that while the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 allows for representation, the Elections Act, 2017 specifically mandates personal verification by the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court established that an affidavit sworn by an attorney cannot substitute for the personal oath and testimony of the petitioner, as this violates the fundamental scheme of witness examination under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, rendering the petition fatally flawed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Elections Act, 2017 require an election petition to be verified personally by the petitioner?
  • Can an attorney verify an election petition and its annexures on behalf of a petitioner under the Elections Act, 2017?
  • Is an affidavit sworn by an attorney on behalf of a petitioner sufficient to satisfy the requirements of evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does the failure to personally verify an election petition render it non-maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Abdul Hameed vs The Province of Sindh and others2021 YLR 867, 2021 SHC 210 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
• Sara Younas vs Station House Officer and others2021 PCRLJ 1798, 2022 KLR Labour & Service Cases 51 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-23
  FIR registrationinvestigation powersinsertion of sectionsEx-Officio Justice of Peaceconstitutional petitioncharge framingpolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 22-A/B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the insertion of additional sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 into an existing FIR. The petitioner alleged that the investigation was biased and that the police failed to include appropriate non-bailable offences despite evidence of injuries. The core legal question was whether a court, under Section 22-A/B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, can direct the police to insert or delete specific sections of law in an FIR during the investigation stage. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the insertion or deletion of sections in an FIR falls within the exclusive domain of the investigating police agency. The Court affirmed that trial courts possess the authority to frame or alter charges based on evidence under Section 265-D and Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to interfere with ongoing police investigations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court under Section 22-A/B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 direct the police to insert or delete specific sections of law in an FIR?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to interfere with an ongoing police investigation?
  • At what stage of the trial can a court alter or change the charge framed against an accused?
  • Is the trial court bound by the sections of law included in the police report submitted under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib Ramzan vs The State & another2021 LHC 872 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-29
  narcotics recoveryplanted evidencecomplainant as investigating officersearch warrantbenefit of doubthabeas corpusjuvenile trialcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 504 grams of Charas. The core legal questions involve evaluating whether a conviction can be sustained when the investigating officer is also the complainant and bears a personal grudge stemming from a habeas corpus petition, whether the mandatory provisions regarding search warrants under Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 were violated, and whether non-compliance with statutory provisions vitiated the trial. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to proven police malice, blatant violation of search warrant requirements, contradictions in recovery witnesses, and failure to comply with mandatory trial procedures. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that where a police officer acts as both complainant and investigating officer in a backdrop of demonstrated hostility and fails to follow mandatory statutory procedures for search and seizure without justification, the resulting recovery is tainted and cannot form the basis of a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the complainant police officer also investigates the case despite proven hostility and malice against the accused?
  • Is it mandatory to obtain a search warrant under Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 before searching residential premises in non-emergency situations?
  • Does the non-compliance with the provisions of Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial of an accused?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when material witnesses to the dispatch of a complaint are withheld without explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib Hussain and another vs Station House Officer, Police Station, Dhirkot2021 P Cr. L J 398 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-07-09
  quashment of proceedingsnon-cognizable offenceProhibition Actinherent powers of High Courtprivate placesearch warrantabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before the Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Dhirkot, regarding an alleged offence under Section 4 of The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985. The core legal question was whether the police could lawfully register an FIR and initiate proceedings for an offence under The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985, when the alleged recovery of alcohol occurred in a private room of a rest house without a search warrant. The Court held that offences under Sections 3, 4, 8, and 11 of the Act are non-cognizable unless committed in a public place. Since the recovery occurred in a private room, the police lacked authority to register the FIR or investigate without complying with Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings, ruling that the trial was without jurisdiction. The key principle established is that police cannot take cognizance of offences under the Act in private places without a warrant, and the High Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 561-A to quash such proceedings to prevent the abuse of court process.

  Questions settled

  • Are offences under Sections 3, 4, 8, and 11 of The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985 cognizable if committed in a private place?
  • Does the High Court have the power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings even if an alternate remedy under Section 249-A exists?
  • Is a residential room in a rest house considered a public place under The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985?
  • Can police investigate an offence under The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985 without a search warrant in a private place?
  Read full judgment →
• Sapphire Textile Mills Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & othersPTCL 2021 CL. 468 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-30Read full judgment →
• Sapphire Textile Mills Limited through Company Secretary vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division and Ex-Officio Chairman, FBR, Islamabad and othersPTCL 2021 CL. 468, 2021 PTD 971 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-30
  undistributed profitsmoney billultra virestax on corporationsdividend distributionconstitutional petitionincome tax
  Summary & questions settled

  The present constitutional petitions challenged the vires of section 5A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which imposed a tax on undistributed profits or reserves of certain public companies. The core legal question was whether matters pertaining to the regulation of corporate behavior regarding dividend distribution could legitimately be enacted through a money bill under Article 73 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, bypassing the regular legislative process. The Sindh High Court held that section 5A was introduced not for general revenue generation, but to supplement company law by incentivizing or regulating dividend distributions by public companies—a subject falling under the regulatory remit of the Companies Act, 2017. The Court ruled that utilizing a money bill for such regulatory purposes is unconstitutional and falls outside the scope of Article 73 and the relevant entries of the Federal Legislative List. Consequently, the petitions were allowed, section 5A was declared ultra vires the Constitution and struck down, and all consequential demand notices were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 5A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 falls within the constitutional parameters of a money bill under Article 73 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can provisions regulating corporate behavior and the distribution of dividends be enacted through a money bill?
  • Whether the imposition of a tax on undistributed profits to incentivize dividend distribution constitutes a tax levied for a general public purpose under the Federal Legislative List?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanwal vs State through Additional Advocate General and 2 others2021 PLJ AJ&K 38 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-07-04
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycounter versiondelay in recording statementsprohibitory clausecriminal revisionAzad Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Dhirkot, whereby the second bail application of the petitioner was rejected in a case registered under Sections 296, 147, 148, 149, and 337 of the Azad Penal Code. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the facts and circumstances of the case, including a counter-version and delayed recording of statements. The High Court held that the non-recording of statements of star witnesses immediately after the occurrence, coupled with a counter-version brought before the trial court, creates a prima facie case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court established that where sufficient grounds for further inquiry exist and the accused is no longer required for investigation, bail should not be withheld as a punishment, even in non-bailable offenses.

  Questions settled

  • Does the delayed recording of statements of star witnesses bring a criminal case within the ambit of further inquiry for the grant of bail?
  • Can bail be withheld as a punishment when an accused is no longer required for the purpose of investigation?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when a counter-version of the occurrence has been brought before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanghol Engineering Services (Pvt.) Ltd vs Capital Development Authority2021 IHC 268, 2024 CLC 321 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-26Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs The State through Prosecutor General, Sindh and another2021 P Cr. L J 1480 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-03
  criminal revisionre-examination of witnessesfair trialSection 540 Cr.P.C.cross-examinationfilling lacunaejudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West, which dismissed the applicant's request under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall and re-examine two prosecution witnesses. The applicant, facing a murder charge, sought to re-cross-examine these witnesses, arguing that his previous counsel had failed to conduct a proper cross-examination, thereby violating his fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal question was whether the court should exercise its discretionary power under Section 540, Cr.P.C. to recall witnesses solely because a new counsel desires to pursue a different line of defense. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that Section 540 powers are intended to advance the cause of justice, not to fill lacunae or gaps in the prosecution or defense case. The court established that a trial cannot be delayed or witnesses recalled merely because a party is dissatisfied with the performance of previous counsel, as this would lead to endless litigation and prejudice the administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court exercise its powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall witnesses solely because a party is dissatisfied with the performance of their previous counsel?
  • Is the power to recall witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 intended to allow parties to fill gaps or lacunae in their case?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 entitle an accused to re-cross-examine witnesses simply to pursue a new line of defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Khan vs The State2021 YLR 2164 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-04-16
  superdaricustody of case propertycriminal revisionbona fide ownerseized propertyAnti-Terrorism Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Gilgit, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the superdari (custody) of various personal items, including a laptop, passport, prize bonds, and cheque books, seized during the investigation of a case registered under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as the undisputed owner and last possessor of the seized items, was entitled to their temporary custody pending the conclusion of the trial. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the trial court's refusal was unjustified, noting that the items had already been exhibited in court and were no longer required for investigative purposes. Furthermore, there were no rival claimants for the property. The Court established the principle that where an accused is the bona fide owner and last possessor of seized items, and no other claimant exists, the items should be released on superdari to prevent unnecessary and indefinite retention in police custody, provided the petitioner furnishes an undertaking to return the items if forfeited by the court upon trial conclusion.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused person entitled to the superdari of seized items if they are the bona fide owner and there are no rival claimants?
  • Can seized property be released on superdari if the items have already been exhibited in the trial court and are no longer required for investigation?
  • Does the involvement of an accused in anti-state activities automatically disqualify them from obtaining superdari of their personal property?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Kakar and another vs The State2021 SHC 816 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Babar son of Zakaullah Babar, Ex.S.F. C&W Department, Peshawar vs The State_National Accountability Bureau, through its Chairman NAB Headquarters, Islamabad and others2021 PHC 200, 2022 PCr. LJ 213 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-03
  assets disproportionate to known sources of incomeNational Accountability Ordinancecorruption and corrupt practicesburden of proofforfeiture of propertyrebuttal of statutory presumptionabatement of appeal upon death
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal and connected writ petitions challenged the judgment of the Accountability Court convicting the appellant under Section 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for accumulating assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, and ordering the forfeiture of properties belonging to him and his family members. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant passed away, and his legal heirs were impleaded, while his wife and son challenged the forfeiture of their respective properties. The core legal question centered on whether the prosecution successfully established a case of corruption and whether the statutory presumptions under the NAO, 1999, were duly rebutted by the defense. The Peshawar High Court held that while the prosecution proved the existence of the properties, it failed to provide any evidence of corruption, misuse of official capacity, or acquisition of assets through illicit funds. Conversely, the defense successfully accounted for the properties through inheritance, salaries, pensions, and profitable real estate transactions. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, fine, and forfeiture of properties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the statutory presumption under Section 14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, relieves the prosecution of its primary duty to establish a foundation of corruption before the burden shifts to the accused?
  • Can an accused successfully rebut the allegation of holding assets disproportionate to known sources of income by demonstrating legal sources such as inheritance, family resources, and profitable real estate transactions?
  • Whether the forfeiture of properties belonging to family members and dependents can be sustained when the underlying conviction and the charge of corruption itself are not proved by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah vs The State2021 PHC 374, 2022 PLD Peshawar 251 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-19
  post-arrest transit bailjurisdictionAnti-Terrorism CourtFederal Investigation Agencycyber crimeblasphemy
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest transit bail in a case registered at Islamabad under various provisions including the Pakistan Penal Code, Anti-Terrorism Act, and Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, after the Anti-Terrorism Court at Peshawar returned the initial bail application for lack of jurisdiction. The core legal question concerns the territorial jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court at Peshawar to entertain a post-arrest bail petition in a case registered by the Counter Terrorism Wing of the Federal Investigation Agency at Islamabad. The Peshawar High Court held that under Section 4 and Section 5 of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, read with the Ministry of Interior's notification extending the jurisdiction of the FIA Counter Terrorism Wing across Pakistan and empowering local trial, the Anti-Terrorism Court at Peshawar possesses the requisite jurisdiction to hear and decide bail petitions arising from such cases. The court laid down the principle that Anti-Terrorism Courts within a province are competent to entertain bail applications and try cases registered by central investigative agencies where the statutory notification and territorial nexus so permit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Anti-Terrorism Court at Peshawar has jurisdiction to entertain a post-arrest bail petition in a case registered by the Counter Terrorism Wing, FIA, Islamabad?
  • Does the Federal Investigation Agency have the authority to investigate cyber-terrorism and related offences across Pakistan under its statutory powers and notifications?
  • Are officers of the Federal Investigation Agency empowered to exercise powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station throughout Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah Khan vs The State, etc2021 LHC 6720, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 355 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-09
  illegal dispossessionappeal against acquittalmaintainability of appealstatutory right of appealacquittal under section 265-K Cr.P.C.revisional jurisdictionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, whereby respondents were acquitted under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 from charges under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of an appeal against an acquittal under section 8-A of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005. The court held that a right of appeal is strictly a creature of statute and that section 8-A of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 provides an appeal solely against convictions and orders under section 8(1), deliberately omitting any right of appeal against an acquittal. Consequently, the criminal appeal against acquittal was held to be not maintainable. The key principles laid down are that the right of appeal cannot be inferred by implication from statutory provisions, the term 'any' in section 8-A does not extend to orders of acquittal, and an acquittal under the Act cannot be challenged via an appeal or revision where barred by the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, leaving constitutional petitions as an alternate remedy where no other efficacious remedy exists.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal maintainable against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005?
  • Does the word 'any' in Section 8-A of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 include an order of acquittal?
  • Can a right of appeal be inferred by implication from the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under Section 9 of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005?
  • What is the appropriate remedy to challenge an order of acquittal under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 when no appeal is provided by the statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah Khan and another vs Assistant Collector Anti Smuggling2022 PTD 626, PTCL 2022 CL. 603 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-28Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah Khan and 39 others vs President Pakistan Veterinary Medical2021 MLD 424 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-07-03Read full judgment →
• Sana Khan and others vs Abdullah Khan through his L.Rs. and others2021 CLC 1774 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-10-07Read full judgment →
• Samsung Gulf Electronics Fze vs Latif Hakeem and 5 others2021 MLD 747 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-10-23Read full judgment →
• Samman Ghee Mills (Pvt) Ltd vs Federal Board of Revenue etc2021 LHC 7620 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-01Read full judgment →
• Samiullah vs The State2021 YLR 452 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-18
  criminal appealacquittaloffshoot caserecovery proceedingsmandatory complianceSection 103 CrPCevidentiary valueburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, which convicted the appellant under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, and sentenced him to four years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s conviction could be sustained given his acquittal in the main cases from which the present charge was an offshoot, and whether the prosecution’s failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the recovery of the weapon vitiated the conviction. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, noting that the appellant had already been acquitted in the main cases, and that the present case was an offshoot of those proceedings. Furthermore, the Court found the prosecution’s case defective due to the failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality during the recovery, violating the principles of Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reaffirming that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal in a case that is an offshoot of a main case in which they have already been acquitted?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality during a recovery violate the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Samiullah vs Baz Muhammad2021 PLD Balochistan 196, 2022 PLJ Quetta 69 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-11Read full judgment →
• Samira Mahamadi vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 SCMR 1080 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-05-05
  COVID-19 pandemicjudicial oversightpublic procurement transparencyprice regulationmedical supply chainaccountability of public institutionscivil aviation misconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the Supreme Court's ongoing monitoring of the state's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically regarding the availability of medical supplies, oxygen, and the financial transparency of government agencies. The Court addressed multiple applications concerning the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP), the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), and provincial governments. The core legal questions involved the regulation of oxygen prices, the transparency of NDMA procurement processes, and the accountability of public institutions like the Pakistan International Airline Corporation (PIAC) and the Civil Aviation Authority regarding delinquent employees. The Court held that the Ministry of Industries and Production must establish a proper price mechanism for oxygen within one week. It expressed dissatisfaction with NDMA's vague reporting on equipment procurement and cash payments, ordering the Chairman to appear personally. The Court emphasized the necessity for government departments to vigorously prosecute criminal cases against delinquent employees rather than allowing them to lapse due to poor evidence, and mandated that provincial governments provide detailed, transparent reports on resource allocation and pandemic management.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Ministry of Industries and Production responsible for regulating the price of oxygen and oxygen cylinders?
  • Can the Supreme Court mandate government departments to vigorously pursue criminal prosecutions against delinquent employees to prevent acquittals due to lack of evidence?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to demand detailed financial and operational reports from provincial governments regarding the allocation of funds for public health and education?
  Read full judgment →
• Samina Qasim Tarar and another vs The State and another2021 MLD 278 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-10-01Read full judgment →
• Samina Farooq vs Govt. of Punjab etc2021 [M] C L R 623, 2021 PLD Lahore 271, 2021 LHC 157 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
• Samia Khan vs Federal Board Of Intermediate And Secondary Education, Islamabad2021 MLD 1815 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-08Read full judgment →
• Samia Anwar and another vs Nasir Hussain and 2 others2022 MLD 731, 2022 [M] CLR 1677, 2022 PLJ Lahore 815 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-10Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah vs The State2021 PLJ SC (Cr.C. ) 232, 2021 SCMR 729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-03
  post-arrest bailcounterfeit currencyfurther inquirycriminal petitionbail bond
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from the refusal of post-arrest bail by the Peshawar High Court to the petitioner, who was charged under Section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an FIR involving the recovery of forged currency notes. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail pending trial, given the nature of the allegations and the evidence presented. Upon review, the Court observed that the FIR contents suggested the potential applicability of Section 489-C, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rather than Section 489-B, as there was no immediate allegation of the petitioner using the counterfeit notes as genuine. The Supreme Court held that the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry under the provisions of Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioner subject to the furnishing of a bail bond. The principle established is that where the specific nature of the offence remains a matter for trial determination, the case may fall within the scope of further inquiry for bail purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of forged currency without evidence of usage as genuine attract Section 489-B or Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the determination of the specific offence charged a matter for the trial court to decide after recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah vs The State and another2021 IHC 186, 2022 PCRLJ 1739 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-29
  plea of insanityunsoundness of mindlegal insanity vs medical insanitymurder referenceburden of proofmental capacity to stand trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Sami Ullah, preferred an appeal against his conviction and death sentence handed down by the trial court under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of his pregnant wife. The Islamabad High Court also considered a murder reference for confirmation of the sentence. During the trial, the appellant pleaded guilty but raised a defense of unsoundness of mind under section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and argued that mandatory procedures under sections 464 and 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 were not followed. The core legal questions involved distinguishing between legal insanity at the time of the offense and mental capacity to stand trial, and evaluating the burden of proof for the defense of insanity. The High Court dismissed the appeals, confirmed the death sentence, and answered the murder reference in the affirmative, holding that the appellant failed to discharge the heavy onus of proving legal insanity under section 84, and that the provisions of Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding trial capacity are distinct from the substantive defense of insanity.

  Questions settled

  • What is the distinction between legal insanity under section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and the procedures for determining incapacity to stand trial under Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Upon whom lies the burden of proving the exception of unsoundness of mind under section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Whether the failure to observe procedures under sections 464 and 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 vitiates a trial where the accused fails to establish cognitive impairment at the time of the offense?
  • Does the mere existence of medical insanity or depressive illness exempt an accused from criminal liability without establishing complete cognitive impairment of legal insanity?
  Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah vs Rehmat Ullah2021 PHC 410, 2022 MLD 681 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
• Sambu Construction Co. Ltd vs Laraib Energy Limited and others2021 CLC 1914, 2022 [M] CLR 711, 2022 PCTLR 780 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-26
  bank guaranteeinterim injunctionirrevocable and unconditional guaranteeegregious fraudirretrievable injusticeperformance securitycontractual dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Additional District Judge, Islamabad, dismissing an application for an interim injunction to restrain the encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee. The appellant, Sambu Construction Co. Ltd., sought to prevent respondent No. 1 from encashing a performance security guarantee following disputes over liquidated damages and the appellant's refusal to enhance the guarantee's value. The core legal question was whether the court should restrain the encashment of an irrevocable and unconditional bank guarantee based on underlying contractual disputes. The High Court held that such guarantees constitute independent, autonomous contracts between the bank and the beneficiary, separate from the underlying commercial contract. The court affirmed the dismissal of the injunction, holding that judicial interference is restricted to two narrow exceptions: clear evidence of egregious fraud or the demonstration of irretrievable injustice. Finding neither exception satisfied, the court ruled that contractual disputes regarding performance or indemnity do not justify restraining a bank from honoring its unconditional payment obligation, as the appellant has an adequate remedy in seeking damages through a civil suit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court restrain the encashment of an irrevocable and unconditional bank guarantee due to a dispute in the underlying contract?
  • What are the specific exceptions under which a court may grant an injunction to restrain the encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee?
  • Does the mere allegation of fraud without material particulars satisfy the requirement for restraining the encashment of a bank guarantee?
  • Is the potential for a future money decree an adequate remedy that precludes a finding of irretrievable injustice in the context of bank guarantee encashment?
  Read full judgment →
• Samar Gul vs The Regional Director, Employees Old Age Benefits Institution, Peshawar and others2021 PLC 268 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-14
  old-age pensionseasonal workerlength of serviceinsurable employmentconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by the petitioner seeking a directive for the respondents to pay him monthly old-age pension from the date of his superannuation in accordance with Section 22 of the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976. The core legal question concerned the correct method for calculating the length of service of a seasonal worker under Section 2(q) of the said Act to determine eligibility for an old-age pension requiring fifteen years of qualified service. The Peshawar High Court held that the respondents misapplied the formula for calculating the petitioner's service days by improperly evaluating a year's service. The Court ruled that for a seasonal factory worker where weekly holidays are not paid, the total days served must be divided by 312 days pursuant to Section 2(q) to constitute a complete year. Upon correct calculation, the petitioner's service exceeded fifteen years, making him fully eligible for the pension. The petition was consequently allowed.

  Questions settled

  • How is a year of insurable employment calculated for a seasonal worker under the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
  • What is the qualifying period of contributions required for an insured person to become entitled to a monthly old-age pension under Section 22 of the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
  • When is an insured person entitled to an old-age grant instead of an old-age pension under the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Samad Pipe Industries vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 1112, 2022 PTD 168 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-01Read full judgment →
• Samad Khan vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 950 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-14
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtchemical examiner reportsafe custodyillegal possessionpure food ordinanceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant impugned his conviction and sentence under sections 270 and 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an allegation of possessing betel nuts alleged to be poisonous and intended to spread infection. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency and reliability of the prosecution's evidence, the unexplained delay in sending samples for chemical examination, the lack of safe custody and transmission proof, and the applicability of section 337-J P.P.C. when no hurt was caused. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish safe custody and transmission of the recovered samples, that the chemical examiner's report did not support the charges applied, and that glaring infirmities rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant. The key principles laid down include that a single infirmity creating reasonable doubt makes the whole case doubtful, and that the prosecution must prove safe custody and un-tampered transmission of recovered samples to the chemical examiner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in transmitting samples to the chemical examiner vitiates the prosecution case?
  • Is it mandatory for the prosecution to prove the safe custody and transmission of recovered samples?
  • Can a conviction under section 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when no hurt is caused to any person?
  • Does a single infirmity creating reasonable doubt regarding the truth of the charge entitle the accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Qureshi vs Province of Sindh & others2021 SHC 930 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-28Read full judgment →
• Salman Mujahid vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1699 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-14
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryplea of alibiconflicting versionsmurdercommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the murder of the complainant's husband. The petitioner was alleged to have caused a fatal firearm injury to the deceased. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting versions of the prosecution: the initial FIR naming the petitioner as the shooter, versus the Investigating Officer's subsequent finding that the petitioner had a valid plea of alibi and that a co-accused was the principal offender. The Court held that the existence of these two contradictory versions rendered the case one of further inquiry into the guilt of the accused under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, noting the petitioner's prolonged incarceration and the fact that his physical custody was no longer required for investigation, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The judgment affirms that where investigation yields conflicting accounts, the case warrants further inquiry, favoring the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of conflicting versions between the FIR and the police investigation regarding the identity of the shooter constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a plea of alibi accepted by the Investigating Officer provide a basis for granting post-arrest bail in a murder case?
  • Is the continued incarceration of an accused justified when the police no longer require physical custody for investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Enterprises, Karachi vs The Deputy Director, Directorate General Of Pca, Custom House, Karachi and 2 others2022 PTD (Trib.) 144 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-12-17Read full judgment →
• Salman Bari vs Mst. Samia Khan & another2021 SHC 6 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-04Read full judgment →
• Salman Ahmad Gill vs Sheikh Basit Hameed, etc2021 IHC 160 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-17Read full judgment →
• Salman Abro vs Government of Sindh and others2021 P SC 896, 2021 SCMR 658, 2021 SCP 70 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-09
  private complaintcounter versionleave to appealcriminal trialdelayed afterthoughtself defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition and upheld the trial court's order dismissing his private complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The petitioner, facing trial for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, sought to bring on record a counter-version through a private complaint after an earlier attempt by a third party was dismissed up to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the lower courts rightly dismissed the private complaint aimed at introducing a delayed counter-version at a late stage of the trial. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were well-reasoned, finding the private complaint to be an afterthought and a delayed attempt to build a defense, especially since the matter was already at the stage of final arguments. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal refused, establishing that a belated and repetitive counter-version cannot be allowed to stall an advanced criminal trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a private complaint seeking to introduce a counter-version can be entertained when a similar attempt has already been dismissed in an earlier round of litigation?
  • Can a delayed counter-version filed at the verge of final arguments in a criminal trial be used to stall proceedings?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts refusing to issue process on a private complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →