Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Rustam vs The State2021 SHC 173 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellant for the murder of Muhammad Alam, as determined by the Sessions Judge, Tando Muhammad Khan, on April 5, 2018. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether a conviction is legally sustainable when it relies on evidence recorded under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during the appellant's period as an absconder, without providing the appellant the opportunity to confront witnesses in his presence during the trial. Both the appellant's counsel and the Assistant Prosecutor General conceded that the trial court's procedure violated the mandatory requirement of Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which necessitates that evidence be recorded in the presence of the accused. Finding merit in this contention, the Court set aside the impugned judgment. The High Court held that the trial court must record the evidence of the complainant and witnesses afresh in the presence of the appellant, establishing the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained if the trial court fails to ensure the accused's presence during the examination of witnesses as mandated by procedural law.
Questions settled- Can a trial court convict an accused based on evidence recorded under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without re-examining witnesses in the presence of the accused?
- Does the failure to examine witnesses in the presence of the accused, as required by Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, vitiate a conviction?
- Is it legally permissible for a trial court to rely on evidence recorded during the absence of an accused without providing an opportunity for cross-examination in the accused's presence?
- Rukhsana Bibi vs DEO (F) Buner and others2021 PL C (C.S.) 582 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-25Read full judgment →
- Rukhsana Ambreen vs District And Sessions Judge, Khushab and 2 others2021 CLC 1512 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from concurrent judgments of the lower family courts which partially decreed the petitioner-wife's suit for maintenance allowance, granting her maintenance only for the period of Iddat while dismissing her claim for past maintenance and a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 based on a condition in column No. 19 of the Nikah Nama. The Lahore High Court examined whether a wife is entitled to past maintenance when living apart and whether monetary conditions restricting the husband's right of divorce in the Nikah Nama are enforceable. The Court held that a Muslim husband is under a legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife, and unless the husband proves active disobedience or that reconciliation efforts were made, the wife is entitled to past maintenance. However, the Court upheld the dismissal of the Rs. 3,00,000 claim, holding that a husband's vested right of divorce under Islamic law cannot be restricted by stringent monetary conditions. The petition was consequently partially allowed, modifying the lower courts' findings regarding past maintenance.
Questions settled- Whether a Muslim wife is entitled to past maintenance when living apart from her husband?
- Can a husband's right of divorce under Islamic law be restricted by monetary conditions in the Nikah Nama?
- What is the effect of a husband's failure to make reconciliation efforts upon a wife's claim for past maintenance?
- Is oral evidence sufficient to disprove entries in a Nikah Nama that have not been independently challenged?
- Rukhsana Aftab and another vs Azad Government Of The State Of Jammu2021 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 26 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Royal Securities (Pvt.) Ltd vs Commissioner (Securities Market Division), SECP2021 CLD 655 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2020-05-08Read full judgment →
- Roshan Ali vs The State2021 SHC 94 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case registered for offences relating to unlawful assembly, causing lathi injuries, insult, and criminal intimidation. The core legal question before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail on the grounds of malafide, delayed FIR, rule of consistency with co-accused, and no objection from the complainant and the State. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant had made out a case for pre-arrest bail, noting an unexplained five-day delay in lodging the FIR, the grant of bail to co-accused persons, a pre-existing civil dispute over a passage between the parties, and the express no-objection of the Assistant Prosecutor General and the complainant. The court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant on the same terms and conditions, reinforcing principles of consistency and further inquiry in criminal jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report can form a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Does the grant of bail to co-accused persons entitle another accused to bail on the rule of consistency?
- Whether the lack of opposition from the State and the complainant is a relevant factor in confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Roohul Amin vs Telenor Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited Company through Executive2021 MLD 592, 2022 KLR Civil Cases 233 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-14Read full judgment →
- Rooh Ullah, etc vs The State, etc2022 PSC (Crl.) 187, 2022 SCMR 888, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court, which maintained the conviction of the petitioners under charges of homicide and murderous assault resulting from a property feud in which two persons were shot dead and one injured. The core legal question involves the reliability of eyewitness testimony, particularly that of an injured prosecution witness, in the presence of alleged contradictions, unproved motive, and failure to recover a weapon from one of the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case through consistent eyewitness accounts, prompt reporting of the daylight incident, and corroborative medical evidence, which together excluded the possibility of deliberation or fabrication. The Court affirmed the conviction and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that minor investigative shortcomings, such as the non-recovery of a weapon, do not undermine credible and consistent eyewitness testimony corroborated by an injured witness.
Questions settled- Does the failure of an investigating officer to recover a weapon from an accused undermine otherwise credible prosecution evidence?
- Whether the testimony of an injured prosecution witness can be relied upon in the absence of corroborative recovery.
- Do bald denials by an accused override consistent prosecution evidence supported by prompt reporting and medical examination?
- Rooh Ullah and others vs The State and others2022 SCMR 888 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged their conviction and sentences for double murder and murderous assault arising from an incident on 11.06.2007 in District Nowshera, which resulted in life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution case was fraught with contradictions, unproved motive, and lack of weapon recovery, rendering the testimony of the injured eye-witness untrustworthy. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the injured eye-witness was consistent, reliable, and supported by a promptly lodged FIR and medical evidence, and that minor investigation flaws such as non-recovery of a weapon from one petitioner do not undermine the overwhelming prosecution proof. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of a credible injured eye-witness, supported by prompt reporting and medical corroboration, sustains a conviction notwithstanding minor investigative shortcomings like unrecovered weapons.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of an injured eye-witness can be relied upon despite minor investigation lapses?
- Does the failure to recover a weapon from an accused invalidate the prosecution case when ocular account is strong?
- Whether prompt reporting of a daylight crime excludes the possibility of deliberations?
- Rooh Ullah and another vs Matiullah and another2021 CLC 1998 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-02-24Read full judgment →
- Roobi Shabana vs S.H.O. etc2021 PLJ Lahore 938, 2022 PLJ Lahore 313 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-10Read full judgment →
- Rohail Rizwan Qureshi vs Globe Cosmetics Company through M.D.A. and others2021 PLC 30 · Lahore High Court · 2020-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which remanded a matter to the Labour Authority based on the petitioner's alleged consent. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal’s order incorrectly recorded his counsel's consent, relying on a certificate from said counsel. The core legal question was whether such a certificate could rebut the presumption of correctness attached to judicial proceedings and whether the High Court should interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that judicial proceedings are presumed to be correctly and solemnly performed, and a judge’s record of events is considered absolute verity. A mere certificate from a counsel is insufficient to rebut this presumption; strong, unimpeachable evidence is required. Furthermore, the Court determined that disputed questions of fact regarding what transpired in court cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that the appropriate remedy for a party alleging an error in the recording of proceedings is to approach the original forum for correction, as that court is the best judge of its own proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a counsel's certificate alone rebut the presumption of correctness attached to judicial proceedings?
- Is the High Court empowered to resolve disputed questions of fact regarding court proceedings in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- What is the appropriate remedy for a party claiming that a judicial order incorrectly records the proceedings?
- Does the presumption of correctness attached to judicial proceedings under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 apply to the recording of consent by a court?
- Rohaid Ali Shah vs The State and others2021 MLD 1997 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a violent incident resulting in three deaths and multiple injuries. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the grounds of a cross-version, arguing that he and his brother also sustained injuries during the same occurrence, which should entitle him to bail under established precedents regarding cross-cases. The core legal question was whether the existence of a counter-version and injuries sustained by the accused automatically entitles them to the concession of bail in a case involving multiple fatalities. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the mere presence of injuries on the accused does not mandate bail, especially when the prosecution's case involves significant loss of life and prompt reporting. The court emphasized that the nature of the injuries and their origin—whether self-inflicted or caused by the complainant—remains a matter for trial, and that deeper appreciation of evidence is not warranted at the bail stage.
Questions settled- Does the existence of a cross-version or counter-case automatically entitle an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail?
- Can injuries sustained by an accused during the same occurrence form the sole basis for the grant of bail in a murder case?
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of deciding a post-arrest bail application?
- Rizwan Saeed and 3 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and 4 others2021 CLC 1437 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-02Read full judgment →
- Rizwan Hassan vs The State and another2021 MLD 157 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad, for offences involving the possession of explosives and illicit arms. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of incriminating items and the validity of the appellant’s defence plea of prior illegal abduction by police. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent witness testimony and forensic reports, while the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding his specific defence plea. Under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the burden of proving a special defence lies on the accused, and the appellant’s failure to testify under section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or produce corroborative evidence, rendered his plea unsubstantiated. While upholding the convictions, the Court exercised judicial discretion to reduce the sentences to the period already undergone, noting the appellant's acquittal on terrorism charges and lack of prior criminal history.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proving a specific defence plea, such as prior illegal abduction, rest upon the accused?
- Can a conviction be upheld based on recovery evidence that remains consistent and corroborated by forensic reports?
- Does the failure of an accused to appear as a witness under section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, impact the credibility of their defence plea?
- May an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone if mitigating circumstances exist?
- Rizwan Baig Rubi vs Khurram Shahzad, etc2021 LHC 6774, 2022 MLD 1248 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-15Read full judgment →
- Rizwan Ahmad & 3 others vs The State & another2021 LHC 1133 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition calls into question the judgments of the lower courts convicting the petitioners for various offenses including causing injuries. The core legal question revolved around whether a conviction can be sustained on the solitary, uncorroborated testimony of an inimical and injured witness whose deposition contained material improvements and contradictions, and how the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies. The Lahore High Court held that while an injured witness's presence at the crime scene is generally presumed, their testimony is not automatically a stamp of truth and must be rigorously tested, especially when tainted by deep-seated enmity, material improvements, and deliberate falsehoods regarding the involvement of multiple accused. The Court established that where a witness is found to have resorted to deliberate falsehood, the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies, rendering their uncorroborated testimony unsafe for sustaining a conviction. Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgments of the courts below and acquitted the petitioners.
Questions settled- Can a criminal conviction be recorded solely on the statement of a solitary witness?
- Does the presence of injuries on a witness automatically serve as a stamp of truth for their entire testimony?
- Can the testimony of an inimical injured witness be safely relied upon without independent corroboration when material improvements are present?
- How does the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply to witness testimony in criminal jurisprudence?
- Rindz Mari and others vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary Mines and Mineral Development Department, Karachi and 8 others2021 CLD 1195 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-27Read full judgment →
- Riffat Shaheen Senior Subject Specialist English-B & In Govt. Girl Higher2021 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 19 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Rida Tahir vs Province Of Sindh and others2021 CLC 958 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-01Read full judgment →
- Rida Fatima vs Pakistan Medical Commission, etc2021 LHC 5524, 2022 PLD Lahore 197 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Lahore High Court addressed a series of writ petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging the National Medical & Dental Colleges Admission Test (MDCAT) 2021. The petitioners, aspiring medical students, contended that conducting the examination over a thirty-day period (August 30 to September 30, 2021) violated Section 18(1) of the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020, which stipulates a 'single admissions test' on 'a date'. They further alleged procedural irregularities and technical hurdles. The Court held that the expression 'single admission test' denotes a single attempt per applicant rather than a test conducted on one specific day across the country. It clarified that 'a date' includes the plural under the General Clauses Act, 1897, to achieve the statute's object. The Court found the Pakistan Medical Commission Conduct of Examinations Regulations, 2021, to be valid delegated legislation consistent with the parent Act. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, though the Court allowed students to avail themselves of the PMC’s internal review mechanism for specific scoring grievances.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'single admissions test' in Section 18 of the PMC Act, 2020, require the examination to be held on one specific day for all candidates?
- Can the singular term 'a date' in a statute be interpreted to include multiple dates under the General Clauses Act, 1897?
- Under what circumstances can delegated legislation be declared ultra vires the parent statute?
- Does the principle of estoppel apply to students who participate in an examination process without objection and only challenge it after failing?
- Is the Pakistan Medical Commission empowered to conduct computerized exams over a period of time under its regulatory framework?
- Riaz Ullah vs The State2021 YLR 1241 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of heroin, opium, and chemicals from a residential house. The prosecution alleged the petitioner was found in possession of three kilograms of heroin during a police raid. The Court observed that while a significant quantity of contraband was recovered, several procedural irregularities undermined the prosecution's case. Specifically, the Court noted the absence of a lady constable during the raid, the failure to comply with the mandatory search requirements under the relevant narcotics legislation, and the lack of documentary evidence proving that the raid on the dwelling house was authorized by senior officers as required by law. Furthermore, the Court applied the Rule of Consistency, noting that a co-accused had already been granted bail. Emphasizing that the investigation was complete and the petitioner was not a previous convict, the Court held that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
Questions settled- Does the failure to comply with the search and arrest procedures under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019 entitle an accused to bail?
- Can the Rule of Consistency be applied to grant bail to an accused when a co-accused has already been released?
- Is the absence of a lady constable during a search of a dwelling house a relevant factor in determining bail in narcotics cases?
- Riaz Khalid vs Adj, etc2021 CLC 1432, 2021 LHC 1063 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-17Read full judgment →
- Riaz Hussain vs Province of Sindh and 07 others2021 SHC 554 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a constitutional petition filed by a project director challenging the decision of the Provincial Selection Board No.II allowing the promotion of a private respondent to the post of Superintending Engineer despite the absence of certain Annual Confidential Reports. The core legal questions involve whether a petitioner without infringed fundamental rights has locus standi to challenge a service promotion, whether such service matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether evaluation by a selection board is amenable to judicial interference. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi and that the petition was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution read with the Service Tribunal Act, as the matter pertained strictly to terms and conditions of service. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, laying down the principle that High Courts will not readily interfere with the expert evaluation of promotion boards, and that the preparation of ACRs is the departmental duty of the administration rather than the employee.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant has locus standi to challenge the promotion of a fellow employee without demonstrating an infraction of a fundamental right?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution to entertain a petition regarding service promotion and terms and conditions of service?
- Is the preparation and presentation of Annual Confidential Reports the duty of the department or the civil servant?
- Should the High Court interfere with the evaluation made by an expert committee or selection board regarding promotions?
- Riaz Hussain vs Assistant Director (Field) Postal Life Insurance, Sargodha2021 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 50 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal arose from an order imposing a minor penalty of stoppage of increments upon the appellant, an Assistant Superintendent (Field) in the Postal Life Insurance, for misconduct and inefficiency regarding the processing of a defective proposal form and conducting clinical tests in the absence of the Assistant Director. The core legal question was whether a formal inquiry under the relevant efficiency and discipline rules was mandatory where the appellant had admitted to the factual basis of the charge, and whether past practice could justify a departure from departmental rules. The Federal Service Tribunal held that where an accused civil servant admits the foundational facts in their written defense, a formal inquiry is not required and may be validly dispensed with by the authorized officer, and that an alleged past practice does not justify the violation of prescribed rules. The Tribunal affirmed the departmental appellate authority's lenient reduction of the penalty and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.
Questions settled- Whether a formal inquiry under the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 can be dispensed with when the accused employee admits to the factual allegations in their defense statement?
- Does an alleged past practice of procedural deviations justify a departure from official departmental rules?
- Whether the imposition of a minor penalty for conducting medical examinations in the absence of a superior officer warrants interference by the Service Tribunal?
- Riaz Furnishers (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Director_Primary_Authorized User vs Executive Engineer Physical Planning And Housing Department Maintenance Division and 3 others2022 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 61 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Riaz Ali Khan and 2 others vs Director.General, Peshawar Development2021 PLC (C.S.) 366 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, employees of the erstwhile Provincial Urban Development Board serving as housing officers, challenged their termination from service and preceding show-cause notices issued by the Peshawar Development Authority. The core legal question was whether the departmental proceedings and subsequent termination of the petitioners complied with the mandatory procedural requirements under the governing service rules. The Peshawar High Court held that the departmental proceedings, conducted by dispensing with an inquiry and issuing show-cause notices instead of following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 23 of the PUDB Service Rules, 1978, were void ab initio. The Court set aside the impugned termination orders, reinstated the petitioners with back benefits, and ruled that where a law requires something to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner. The Court further affirmed that holding an inquiry is mandatory under the governing rules when proceeding against an official for misconduct.
Questions settled- Whether departmental proceedings initiated without holding a mandatory inquiry under the governing service rules are legally sustainable?
- Does the failure to provide copies of record and documents to an employee facing disciplinary action violate the right to a defense?
- Can an authority dispense with an inquiry when the applicable service rules mandate a specific procedure for disciplinary action?
- What is the legal effect when a statute or rule requires a thing to be done in a particular manner and that procedure is not followed?
- Riaz Akbar and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 4 others2021 [M] CLR 1451, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 541 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging their termination and seeking reinstatement and regularization of their services as employees of the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, Kamra. The core legal question was whether contract employees, whose employment contracts expired by efflux of time, possess a vested right to regularization or reinstatement, and whether the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction is the appropriate forum to adjudicate such employment disputes. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners, having accepted employment on a purely contractual basis, had no vested right to remain in service or to be regularized upon the expiry of their contracts. The Court affirmed the principle that contractual employees have no automatic right to regularization unless specifically provided for by law. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is generally not available for purely contractual employment matters, as the appropriate remedy for such employees, in cases of alleged wrongful termination, lies in filing a civil suit for damages for breach of contract rather than seeking reinstatement through a writ petition.
Questions settled- Does a contract employee have a vested right to be regularized upon the expiry of their contract?
- Can a contract employee invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to seek reinstatement?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy for a contract employee alleging wrongful termination?
- Does the expiry of a contract by efflux of time entitle an employee to remain in service?
- Riaz Ahmed and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Chairman, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and others2021 P Cr. L J 1182 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses petitions for post-arrest bail filed by Riaz Ahmed and Sultan Qamar Siddiqi on hardship grounds in connection with corruption references involving illegal appointments, fake companies, and accumulation of assets beyond known sources of income under accountability laws. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of delay and undue hardship, given their approximately two-year incarceration and the status of ongoing trials. The Sindh High Court held that the period of custody and the delay caused were not shocking, unconscionable, or inordinate—particularly since some delay was attributable to the petitioners themselves and the concerned accountability courts were now functional. Consequently, the bail petitions were dismissed, but the trial court was directed to conclude the trials expeditiously within four months on a day-to-day basis. The key principle laid down is that bail on hardship grounds due to trial delay will not be granted where the delay is not shocking or unconscionable, where the accused contributed to the delay, and where the trial court is actively functioning and capable of concluding the proceedings within a reasonable timeframe.
Questions settled- Whether an accused person is entitled to post-arrest bail on hardship grounds solely on the basis of a two-year period of incarceration?
- Does delay in trial attributable in part to the accused disentitle them from claiming bail on hardship grounds?
- Under what circumstances will a court refuse post-arrest bail despite prolonged detention in accountability references?
- Riaz Ahmad vs Maula Bakhsh2021 LHC 7803 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-14Read full judgment →
- Riasat Khan vs Arshad Ali Bhutto and 2 others2021 CLC 976 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-25Read full judgment →
- Resham Khan and another vs The State through Prosecutor General2021 SCMR 2011, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 3 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from the Lahore High Court's dismissal of a post-arrest bail application in a murder case involving sections 302, 109, 148, 149, and 114 of the PPC. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under the 'further inquiry' principle of section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court observed significant contradictions between the ocular account in the FIR and the medical evidence; specifically, the FIR alleged shots to the front of the abdomen, while the post-mortem report showed entry wounds from the back. Furthermore, the investigating agency had declared the petitioners innocent, placing their names in Column No. 2 of the challan based on CCTV footage. The Court held that while an investigator's opinion is not binding, it cannot be ignored without cogent reasons. Finding no tangible evidence or reasonable grounds to believe the petitioners committed the offence, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail, emphasizing that the purpose of trial is to ensure attendance, not to punish under-trial prisoners.
- Reliance Petrochemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized2021 PTD 1082 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-01Read full judgment →
- Reliance It Solutions (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Authorized Representative vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others2021 MLD 1846, 2022 [M] CLR 985, 2022 PCTLR 565 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-05Read full judgment →
- Rehmeed Raja vs SSP Sba & Others2021 SHC 906 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
- Rehmatullah vs The State2021 YLR 2366 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery and sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the reliability of contradictory prosecution evidence, the non-production of key eyewitnesses, and the legality and voluntariness of a retracted judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 from a juvenile accused without mandatory procedural precautions and counseling. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, delayed FIR registration, lack of corroboration, and the involuntary and legally flawed nature of the retracted confession of the minor appellant. The court laid down the principle that extraordinary care, mandatory precautionary measures, time for reflection, and opportunities for legal counseling must be strictly observed while recording the confessional statement of a juvenile, and a retracted confession cannot form the basis of a safe conviction without strong independent corroboration.
Questions settled- Whether a retracted judicial confession of a juvenile accused can be relied upon for conviction without fulfilling mandatory procedural safeguards?
- Does the non-production of material private eyewitnesses attract an adverse inference against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Whether material contradictions regarding the time and manner of the occurrence and the lodging of the FIR vitiate the prosecution case?
- Is it mandatory to provide counseling through a guardian or a lawyer to a juvenile before recording their confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Rehmatullah vs Nabi Bux and others2021 SHC 252 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
- Rehmatullah vs Mst. Bibi Zenora and 2 others2021 PLD Balochistan 145 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-08Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Gul vs State2022 P Cr.L J 10, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1228 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 18,000 grams of narcotics. The core legal questions concerned whether the destruction of the bulk of the seized narcotics without specific prior notice to the accused prejudiced his defense and whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was sound based on consistent ocular and documentary evidence. The Court held that the law governing the destruction of seized narcotics under Section 516-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, does not mandate prior notice to the accused, and the presence of the accused during the destruction proceedings constitutes sufficient notice. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, to prove his innocence. The chain of custody was found to be intact and properly maintained.
Questions settled- Does the destruction of seized narcotics under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require prior notice to be served upon the accused?
- Does the presence of an accused during the destruction of seized narcotics satisfy the requirement of notice?
- When does the burden of proof shift to the accused in cases involving the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Rehmat Gul son of Hayat Gul, r/o Mamozai Orakzai vs The State2021 PHC 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, resulting in life imprisonment for the trafficking of narcotics. The core legal questions concern whether the destruction of seized narcotics case property without prior notice to the accused vitiates the trial proceedings, and whether the prosecution sufficiently established the chain of custody. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The Court held that neither Section 33(4) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 nor Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandates prior notice to an accused for the destruction of seized narcotics. The destruction of narcotics under judicial supervision does not prejudice the accused's defense, provided the procedure is transparent and samples are preserved. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. Consistent ocular and documentary evidence, combined with a positive chemical analysis report, sufficiently establishes guilt.
Questions settled- Does the destruction of seized narcotics under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require prior notice to the accused?
- Does the failure to provide notice to an accused before the destruction of narcotics case property prejudice the defense?
- Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case?
- Is the destruction of narcotics case property permissible under the supervision of a Judicial Magistrate before the conclusion of the trial?
- Rehmat Ali and 2 others vs The State2022 YLR 611 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the Appellants under section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 20 of The Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentencing them to life imprisonment with compensation. The prosecution case arose from a dacoity committed in a residential flat during which a young man was shot dead upon offering resistance. The core legal question involved whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the Appellants for dacoity with murder through consistent ocular accounts, identification parades, medical evidence, and weapon recoveries. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, affirming the convictions and sentences, while slightly modifying the default sentence regarding compensation to align with statutory limits under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony of natural eyewitnesses inside a dwelling remains unshaken and is corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, the conviction for dacoity with murder under section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is fully sustainable.
Questions settled- Whether the trial court can convert a conviction under Hudood laws to Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when proof under Hudood is lacking?
- Does a variance in testimony on immaterial points vitiate the ocular account in a dacoity and murder case?
- Whether natural eyewitnesses inside a dwelling require independent corroboration when their testimony remains unshaken?
- What is the maximum period of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Rehman vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 590 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition was filed by Rehman seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 109/2020 dated 14.04.2020, registered under Sections 376 and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Saddar Shakargarh, District Narowal, on allegations of attempting to commit rape. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting the absence of a medico-legal examination certificate showing signs of violence, the doubtful credibility of the prosecution story given the circumstances of the escape, and a prior pending civil dispute over property between the families providing a potential motive for false implication. The court laid down the principle that where material aspects of the prosecution case require further inquiry and previous animosity over property exists, the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Questions settled- Does the absence of a medico-legal certificate in an attempted rape case make the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Whether previous property disputes between the families of the complainant and the accused constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the credibility of the prosecution story requires determination by the trial court?
- Rehman Ali etc vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 711 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Rehman Ali and Salman Ali, who were implicated in a criminal case involving charges of murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the prosecution's investigative findings. The Court observed that while the FIR alleged the petitioners participated in the firing, the investigation report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 concluded they were not present at the scene, identifying other individuals as the primary perpetrators. The prosecution alleged the petitioners only provided reconnaissance and facilitation. Finding no recoveries from the petitioners and noting they were no longer required for investigation, the Court held that their case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the petitioners' continued incarceration served no useful purpose. The key principle laid down is that where investigation reports contradict the initial FIR regarding the presence and role of an accused, a case for further inquiry is established, justifying the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Does an investigation report concluding that an accused was not present at the crime scene constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution's investigation contradicts the initial FIR regarding the role of the accused?
- Is the absence of recovery from an accused a relevant factor in determining entitlement to post-arrest bail?
- Rehan Arif vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 654 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-22Read full judgment →
- Regional Operation Chief, National Bank of Pakistan, Human Resource2021 SCP 104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether an appeal filed by a civil servant before the Federal Service Tribunal abates upon his death or if his legal heirs can pursue it. The decedent, an officer who was penalized through reduction in pay, passed away while his departmental service appeal was pending before the Tribunal, which subsequently allowed his legal heirs to be impleaded as parties. The petitioners contended that employment grievances do not survive a civil servant's death under the relevant service laws. The Court held that a service appeal concerning terms and conditions does not automatically abate upon the death of the appellant if the right to sue survives and if potential pecuniary, pensionary, or back benefits devolve upon the legal heirs. The Court laid down the principle that service disputes often involve property and financial rights connected to the estate and family of the deceased, and fundamental rights to livelihood, property, dignity, and fair trial under the Constitution protect survivable interests, allowing legal representatives to continue pending service proceedings to their logical conclusion.
Questions settled- Does a service appeal filed by a civil servant abate upon his death or can his legal heirs pursue the same?
- Whether the right to sue in an employment dispute survives the death of a civil servant for the purpose of claiming back benefits and pensionary rights?
- Do fundamental rights under the Constitution protect the survivable interests and reputation of a deceased civil servant enabling legal heirs to continue pending legal proceedings?
- Regional Operation Chief, National Bank Of Pakistan, Human Resource2021 SCMR 702 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns whether an appeal filed by a civil servant before the Federal Service Tribunal abates upon his death or if his legal heirs can pursue it. The decedent civil servant had challenged a major penalty of reduction in rank before the Tribunal and passed away during its pendency. The Tribunal permitted his legal heirs to be impleaded as parties, prompting the petitioners to seek leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question addresses the survivability of an employment-related claim and service appeal upon a civil servant's death. The Supreme Court held that service disputes involving potential pecuniary, pensionary, and back-benefit entitlements do not abate upon the death of the civil servant; rather, the right to sue survives for the legal heirs. The Court laid down that employment claims carrying survivable financial interests, as well as the right to vindicate a deceased civil servant's reputation and dignity, pass to the legal heirs and are protected under fundamental constitutional rights to livelihood, property, dignity, and fair trial. Leave to appeal was consequently declined.
Questions settled- Does an appeal filed by a civil servant before the Service Tribunal abate upon his death?
- Can the legal heirs of a deceased civil servant continue a service appeal relating to terms and conditions of service?
- Do employment-related claims involving back benefits and pensionary rights survive the death of a civil servant?
- Are the equitable principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to proceedings before the Service Tribunal regarding the survival of a right to sue?
- Reginald Chude Bjekwe, Nigerian National vs The State and another2021 MLD 2028 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 420, 468, 471, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sections 18(b) and 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance 1979, involving allegations of presenting a forged United Nations passport and ID card. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioner makes out a case for further inquiry and is entitled to bail on the principle of consistency and when alternate punishments are provided. The Islamabad High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The court held that since a co-accused placed at a higher footing had already been released on bail, the petitioner was entitled to the same relief under the principle of consistency. Furthermore, the court established that where a statute provides for alternate punishments of imprisonment or fine, the lesser punishment is considered for the purpose of bail, bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, especially when investigation is complete, the trial has not progressed significantly, and no expert report confirming the forgery has yet been received.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the principle of consistency when a co-accused attributed a more prominent role has already been released on bail?
- Does the provision of alternate punishments of imprisonment or fine in a statute make a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Whether bail can be withheld indefinitely when the investigation is complete, challan has been submitted, and the trial has not made substantial progress?
- Reference No. 1 Of 2020: In the matter of vs N/A2021 PLD Supreme Court 825 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Presidential Reference under Article 186 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 sought the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on whether the condition of 'secret ballot' under Article 226 applies exclusively to direct constitutional elections or also extends to Senate elections conducted under the Elections Act 2017. By a 4-1 majority, the Supreme Court declared that Senate elections are held 'under the Constitution' and law, and thus fall within the constitutional purview. The Court held that secrecy of the ballot under Article 226 is not absolute, but must be tempered by practical considerations to ensure transparency and prevent corruption. The Court laid down that under Article 218(3) of the Constitution, the Election Commission of Pakistan bears a duty to organize free, fair, and honest elections and guard against corrupt practices using all available technologies and measures. The Parliament cannot legislate under Article 222 to abridge or take away these constitutional powers of the Election Commission.
Questions settled- Are elections to the Senate of Pakistan held under the Constitution within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is the requirement of secrecy of the ballot under Article 226 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 absolute in nature?
- Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have a duty under Article 218(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to utilize technology and measures to prevent corrupt practices during elections?
- Reference by the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, under2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 104, 2021 PLD Supreme Court 480, PLJ 2021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This presidential reference under Article 186 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, sought the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on whether the requirement of a 'secret ballot' under Article 226 applies exclusively to elections held directly under the Constitution, such as those for the President, Speakers, and Prime Minister, or if it also extends to elections for members of the Senate conducted under the Elections Act, 2017. By a majority of four to one, the Court opined that elections to the Senate are held under the Constitution and the law, and consequently fall within the mandatory ambit of a secret ballot as stipulated by Article 226. The Court emphasized that while the Elections Act, 2017 provides procedural machinery, the substantive requirement of secrecy originates from the Constitution. Furthermore, the Election Commission of Pakistan remains under a constitutional duty pursuant to Articles 218(3) and 220 to ensure elections are conducted fairly and transparently, utilizing available technologies to guard against corrupt practices, while noting that ballot secrecy is not absolute but must be tempered by practical electoral processes as established in precedent.
Questions settled- Whether elections to the Senate of Pakistan are held under the Constitution or solely under the Elections Act, 2017?
- Does the requirement of a secret ballot under Article 226 of the Constitution apply to the election of members of the Senate?
- What are the duties and powers of the Election Commission of Pakistan under Article 218(3) of the Constitution to ensure transparent and corruption-free elections?
- Is the secrecy of the ballot an absolute principle or is it subject to practical considerations in the electoral process?
- Razia Kubra vs State and 3 othersPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1820 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a trial court judgment that acquitted the accused in a case involving allegations of kidnapping and Zina. The core legal question was whether a trial court can refuse to convict for Zina-bil-Jabr solely due to the absence of four eyewitnesses, thereby ignoring DNA evidence and the possibility of conviction under Ta'zir. The High Court held that the trial court erred by strictly applying the Hudood standard of proof (Tazkiatus-shuhood) while disregarding the evidentiary value of modern scientific techniques like DNA testing. The Court emphasized that while four witnesses are required for Hudood punishment, convictions for Zina-bil-Jabr can be sustained under Ta'zir based on the victim's testimony, especially when corroborated by medical or scientific evidence. The principle laid down is that the absence of four eyewitnesses does not preclude a conviction under Ta'zir, and courts must consider DNA evidence under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, rather than relying exclusively on the Hudood evidentiary standard. Consequently, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Is the testimony of a prosecutrix sufficient for conviction in a Zina-bil-Jabr case without corroboration?
- Can a court rely on DNA evidence in cases involving Zina-bil-Jabr?
- Does the failure to produce four eyewitnesses preclude a conviction for Zina under Ta'zir?
- Is the standard of proof required for Hudood punishment applicable to convictions under Ta'zir?
- Razak Khan Khajjak vs The Chairman/Chairperson, Q.D.A.Government Of2021 PLD Balochistan 41 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Raza Muhammad and another vs The State2021 SHC 1259 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal bail application filed by applicant Manzoor under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in a case relating to murder committed by an unlawful assembly with fire shot injuries. The core legal question is whether the applicant, to whom no effective role is attributed and whose liability is vicarious, makes out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court held that since no effective role was attributed to the applicant and his participation based on vicarious liability required determination at trial, his case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing required surety bonds, laying down the principle that where an accused's participation is based on vicarious liability without an active role assigned, the matter calls for further inquiry under Section 497 Cr.P.C.
Questions settled- Whether an accused with no effective role attributed and facing allegations based on vicarious liability is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does a case involving determination of vicarious liability at trial fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Raza Motor Industries vs The Federation of Pakistan, etc2021 LHC 4972, 2022 PCTLR 1483, PTCL 2022 CL. 28, 2022 PTD 19 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns writ petitions challenging notices issued by the Commissioner Inland Revenue under Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, for selecting taxpayers for audit. The core legal question is whether the Commissioner’s power to select a case for audit is restricted by the proviso to Section 177(1), specifically whether it mandates a two-stage process where records must be summoned before selection, and whether the Commissioner’s discretion requires structuring through rules. The Court held that the petitions were meritless. It determined that under Section 177, the selection for audit is the primary, antecedent act, and the summoning of records is a subsequent procedural step. The proviso does not curtail the Commissioner's power to select cases for audit, nor does it impose a mandatory pre-audit hearing. The Court affirmed that selection for audit does not constitute an actionable injury, as the taxpayer retains multiple opportunities to defend their position during the audit and subsequent assessment proceedings. The principle established is that administrative discretion in audit selection is not unbridled but is governed by the statute’s objectives, requiring reasons to be recorded and communicated without necessitating rigid, rule-based structuring.
Questions settled- Does the proviso to Section 177(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, mandate a two-stage process requiring the Commissioner to summon records before selecting a taxpayer for audit?
- Is the Commissioner's power to select a taxpayer for audit under Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, subject to rigid, rule-based structuring of discretion?
- Does the mere selection of a taxpayer for audit under Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, constitute an actionable injury entitling the taxpayer to constitutional relief?
- Is the Commissioner required to grant a hearing to a taxpayer at the pre-audit stage before issuing a notice for audit under Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
- Raza Ali Khattak, Superintendent, Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan, and three others vs Vice Chancellor, Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan and 2 others2021 PHC 116, 2022 P LC (C.S.) 1540 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioners, who were contractual employees of the Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan, and sought a directive for their regularization. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as contractual employees, possessed a vested right to regularization and whether their termination upon the expiry of their contract period was unlawful. The Court held that the petition was without merit. Relying on established precedents, the Court determined that contractual employees have no inherent right to regularization in the absence of specific statutory provisions. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioners' appointments were made under specific statutory limitations regarding the duration of temporary posts, and upon the expiry of their contract period, the employment relationship ceased by operation of law. The Court affirmed that the University, as the employer, acted within its discretion to dispense with services upon the expiration of the contract. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the Court emphasized that contractual employees cannot claim parity with regular employees or seek regularization as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Do contractual employees have a vested right to seek regularization of their employment in the absence of a specific statutory provision?
- Can a university terminate the services of contractual employees upon the expiry of their contract period without violating the law?
- Does the expiration of a contract period under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act 2012 automatically terminate the employment relationship?
- Rawat and 3 others vs The State2021 YLR 2147 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the pendency of the appeal, three of the appellants died natural deaths, and proceedings against them accordingly abated, leaving the appeal to be decided solely with respect to the surviving appellant, Wahid Bux alias Wahid Dino. The core legal question concerned whether the conviction of the surviving appellant could be sustained when he was not named in the First Information Report, was not assigned any role by material eyewitnesses, and was implicated solely based on inadmissible police statements and co-accused statements without corroborative evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting material discrepancies, the absence of his name in the FIR or eyewitness testimonies, and the lack of incriminating recoveries. The court laid down the principle that even a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the acquittal of the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal against conviction abates upon the natural death of an appellant during the pendency of the proceedings?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the accused is neither named in the First Information Report nor implicated by material eyewitnesses during trial?
- Can a statement made by a co-accused before the police serve as legal basis for the conviction of another accused?
- What is the legal effect of a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case against an accused?
- Ravinder Nath Agarwal vs Yogender Nath Agarwal & Ors2021 SCInd 82 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-02-12Read full judgment →
- Rata Shah vs Superintendent Central Prison, Peshawar2021 PHC 274 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged an appellate court's dismissal of the petitioner's request to convert consecutive sentences into concurrent sentences. The petitioner had been convicted in four separate cases under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving separate sentences of three years' imprisonment in each. The core legal question concerned the scope of the court's discretion under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order sentences from separate trials to run concurrently. The Court held that while Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to convictions at a single trial, Section 397 grants the court wide discretion to order concurrent sentences based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Emphasizing that the philosophy of imprisonment is reformative rather than merely punitive, the Court ruled that excessive consecutive sentences should be avoided to prevent unnecessary incarceration. Consequently, the Court ordered that the petitioner's sentences run concurrently, establishing that appellate and revisional courts possess the authority to exercise this discretion to ensure substantial justice.
Questions settled- Can an appellate or revisional court exercise discretion under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order sentences from separate trials to run concurrently?
- Does the failure to serve a notice under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon an accused admitting guilt invalidate the conviction process?
- Is the power to order concurrent sentences limited to the trial court, or can it be exercised by an appellate or revisional court?
- Rasool Khan and 29 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Technology and 2 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 14 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns writ petitions filed by retired employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) who were originally employees of the T&T Department. The core legal question is whether these 'departmental employees,' despite their transfer to PTCL, are entitled to pensionary benefits, including periodic increases, medical allowances, and other retirement benefits, at the same rates announced by the Federal Government for civil servants. The Court held that while these employees ceased to be civil servants upon transfer, their terms and conditions of service were statutorily protected by Section 9 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991, and Sections 35 and 36 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996. Consequently, the Court ruled that these employees are entitled to the same pensionary and retirement benefits as civil servants. The key principle laid down is that the statutory protection of service terms prevents the employer from varying benefits to the disadvantage of transferred employees, and that equality before the law requires similarly placed employees to receive the same benefits as those granted to others in previous judicial precedents.
Questions settled- Are employees transferred from the T&T Department to PTCL entitled to the same pension increases as federal civil servants?
- Does the loss of civil servant status upon transfer to a corporate entity deprive employees of their protected pensionary benefits?
- Can employees of PTCL who were hired after the enactment of the 1991 Act invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court regarding service terms?
- Are the retirement benefits of transferred departmental employees protected against adverse variation by the employer?
- Rasool Bux vs The State2021 YLR 1906 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be maintained when the appellant had already been acquitted in the primary case from which the current charge arose, and whether the prosecution proved the recovery of the weapon beyond reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that since the appellant was acquitted in the main case based on the same evidence, the current conviction was unsustainable. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the requirements of Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding the association of independent witnesses during recovery are mandatory. Additionally, the Court established that an unexplained delay in transmitting a recovered weapon to the Ballistic Expert creates significant doubt, rendering the forensic report unreliable and insufficient to support a conviction.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of an accused in a primary case necessitate the acquittal in a secondary case arising from the same evidence?
- Is the association of independent witnesses mandatory for the recovery of weapons under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an unexplained delay in sending a recovered weapon to the Ballistic Expert render the forensic report unreliable?
- Rasool Bux Phulpoto vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet2021 P Cr. L J 190 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a constitutional petition challenging an order of an Accountability Court that directed the inclusion of the petitioner's name as an accused in a supplementary reference filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The core legal questions revolved around whether an Accountability Court possesses the suo motu power to order the addition of a person as an accused in a reference, and whether NAB could exonerate an accused through a supplementary reference without following prescribed withdrawal procedures. The Sindh High Court held that an Accountability Court has no power in law to include new persons in the list of accused or substitute its own opinion for that of the investigating officer, and similarly, NAB could not unilaterally exonerate an accused in a supplementary reference where the accused was part of the original transferred case. The key principles laid down are that Accountability Courts cannot add accused persons to references on their own accord, and NAB must follow proper statutory procedures such as section 31-B of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 if it intends to withdraw a prosecution.
Questions settled- Does an Accountability Court have the power to order the inclusion of a new person as an accused in a reference?
- Can NAB exonerate an accused person through a supplementary reference after a case has been transferred under section 16-A(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
- What is the proper legal procedure for NAB to withdraw a prosecution against an accused?
- How is a transferred case under section 16-A(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 treated before an Accountability Court?
- Rasool (Deceased) through L.Rs. and 6 others vs Jano and 10 others2021 MLD 1759 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-09-22Read full judgment →
- Rashida Bibi vs CPO and 5 othersPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1078 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Lahore High Court through a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking the recovery and custody of her six-year-old minor son from the illegal and improper detention of the father. The core legal question revolved around whether the High Court, exercising parental jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, can restore the custody of a minor to a parent lawfully entitled to hazanat (custody) despite the availability of an alternate remedy before the Guardian Court. The Court held that while the Guardian Court is the final arbitrator for child custody, the High Court is not precluded from exercising its parental jurisdiction to protect the welfare of the minor and ensure that a parent unlawfully deprived of lawful custody is granted relief. The key principle laid down is that habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy to restore custody to a parent possessing the primary right of hazanat when abruptly deprived thereof, and that guardianship and custody are distinct legal concepts under Islamic law and statutory provisions.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore the custody of a minor to a parent?
- Is custody synonymous with guardianship under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890?
- Does the availability of a remedy before the Guardian Court bar the High Court from entertaining a habeas corpus petition for the custody of a minor?
- Rashid Zaman vs The State2021 PHC 306, 2022 MLD 1227 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act for the alleged possession of 14,000 grams of charas. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody of the recovered narcotics and whether the chemical examiner’s report, lacking detailed testing protocols, could sustain a conviction. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the samples, noting significant contradictions in witness testimonies and a lack of documentation regarding the receipt and dispatch of the case property. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the chemical examiner’s report was unreliable because it failed to specify the full testing protocols as required by law. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms that any break in the chain of custody or failure to adhere to mandatory testing protocols renders the prosecution's case insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Does a break in the chain of custody of recovered narcotics vitiate the prosecution's case?
- Is a chemical examiner's report admissible if it fails to provide the full protocols of the tests applied?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the safe transmission of samples to the laboratory?
- Rashid Naeem etc vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1099 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad, regarding offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The appellants were convicted for the murder of Muhammad Arshad and the attempted murder of Muhammad Attique, with the motive attributed to extortion (Bhatha). The core legal questions concern the reliability of the ocular account provided by the complainant and other witnesses, the impact of the prosecution's failure to produce an injured witness, and the credibility of the witnesses' presence at the scene. The court evaluates whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the consistency of the eye-witnesses and the corroboration provided by medical evidence. The judgment addresses whether witnesses residing in the same vicinity as the crime scene can be dismissed as chance witnesses. The court affirms the evidentiary value of consistent ocular testimony in a broad daylight occurrence, noting that the non-production of a witness allegedly won over does not inherently undermine the prosecution's case when other evidence remains reliable and consistent.
Questions settled- Does the non-production of an injured witness who has allegedly been won over affect the prosecution's case?
- Can the presence of eye-witnesses at the scene of a crime be doubted if they reside in the same vicinity as the occurrence?
- Is the testimony of eye-witnesses regarding a broad daylight occurrence in a busy area considered reliable?
- Rashid Minhas vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman, Islamabad and another2021 YLR 1072 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal appeals and a writ petition challenging an Accountability Court judgment that convicted Rashid Minhas for corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, while acquitting co-accused Abdul Rehman. The core legal questions addressed whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant’s guilt regarding a Mudaraba investment scam and whether the sentence imposed warranted reduction. The Court held that the prosecution provided overwhelming evidence, including admitted agreements and banking records, proving the appellant fraudulently induced the public to invest in non-existent Mudaraba businesses while impersonating company directors. The Court upheld the conviction and the acquittal of the co-accused, finding no evidence of the latter's involvement. Regarding sentencing, the Court affirmed that punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense (culpae poenae par esto). It laid down the principle that while sentencing should be reformative, white-collar crimes involving massive public deception and impersonation merit strict deterrence, precluding leniency or sentence reduction, particularly when the convict fails to justify the misappropriated funds or demonstrate mitigating circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether a sentence for corruption and corrupt practices can be reduced when the convict has served a substantial portion of the imprisonment?
- Does the principle of proportionality in sentencing require that punishment for white-collar fraud be lenient if the offender is a first-time convict?
- Can an accused be convicted of corruption under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, based on admitted documents and banking records despite the absence of direct evidence of company authorization?
- Is the acquittal of a co-accused justified when the prosecution fails to produce evidence of their specific role or mens rea in the commission of the crime?
- Rashid Mehmood Chaudhry vs Ministry Of Science And Technology and another2021 PLC (C.S.) 351 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to issue him an appointment letter for the post of Director (Admin and Finance) (BS-19) against the Punjab quota in the Pakistan Halal Authority, following a competitive process initiated by an advertisement dated 15.01.2019. The respondents contended that the recruitment process was rightly scrapped because it exceeded the 120-day completion limit prescribed by the Establishment Division's office memorandum, and because the Director General, Pakistan Halal Authority, who chaired the Departmental Selection Committee, was holding office merely on a look-after charge basis and lacked the authority to make appointment recommendations. The core legal question was whether the scraping of the recruitment process and initiation of a fresh process were justified. The court held that while exceeding the 120-day recruitment window alone might not justify scrapping the process, the participation of an officer holding a look-after charge as the chairman of the Departmental Selection Committee violated government policy and rendered the recommendations illegal. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can an officer holding a post on a look-after charge basis chair a Departmental Selection Committee to make appointment recommendations?
- Does exceeding the prescribed 120-day time limit for finalizing recruitment provide a valid ground to scrap a recruitment process?
- Does a candidate acquire a vested right to appointment merely by participating in and being shortlisted during a recruitment process that is subsequently scrapped?
- Rashid Iqbal vs Chancellor, etc2021 LHC 5149, 2022 MLD 1873 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition concerns the validity of an order passed by the Chancellor of Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, setting aside the appointment of the petitioners to various university posts without providing them an opportunity for a hearing. The core legal question was whether the Chancellor’s revisional power under Section 11-A of the Bahauddin Zakariya University Act, 1975, permits the cancellation of appointments without affording the affected appointees a right of audience. The Court held that the power of revision under Section 11-A is quasi-judicial in nature, and the proviso to the section explicitly mandates a fair hearing for affected parties. Consequently, the Chancellor’s failure to hear the petitioners violated the principles of natural justice, specifically the rule of audi alteram partem, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 10-A, and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court established that a post-decisional hearing cannot cure the initial procedural defect. Accordingly, the impugned order was declared to be of no legal effect and was set aside, emphasizing that the duty to hear is inextricably linked to the exercise of quasi-judicial power.
Questions settled- Does the exercise of revisional power under Section 11-A of the Bahauddin Zakariya University Act, 1975, require a mandatory hearing for the affected parties?
- Is the power of revision exercised by the Chancellor under the Bahauddin Zakariya University Act, 1975, considered a quasi-judicial function?
- Can a post-decisional hearing cure the failure to provide an opportunity of hearing to an affected party before passing an adverse order?
- Does the failure to hear an appointee before cancelling their appointment violate the constitutional right to due process?
- Rashid etc vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 944 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of sentences and release on bail for the petitioners, Muhammad Rashid, Tayyab Ahmad, and Muhammad Shehzad, who were convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the suspension of their sentences and release on bail pending the adjudication of their main appeal, given the significant delay in the appeal process and their prior status on bail during the trial. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail on statutory grounds, noting that the appeal had remained pending for over two years without fault on their part. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the appeal is a continuation of the trial and that the principles governing bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 serve as a guideline for exercising discretion under Section 426, allowing for a tentative assessment of evidence rather than a detailed appraisal.
Questions settled- Does the delay in the adjudication of a criminal appeal entitle a convict to the suspension of sentence and release on bail?
- Are the principles governing bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to the suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an appeal considered a continuation of the trial for the purpose of granting bail?
- Rashid alias Jhori vs The State and others2021 YLR 443 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 15 kilograms of 'Doday of Poast'. The core legal question before the Court was whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken and secure chain of custody for the narcotic sample from the point of recovery to its analysis by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. The Court found significant discrepancies in the timeline of the sample's transmission, noting that the prosecution failed to explain the custody of the sample parcel between its collection and its eventual submission to the laboratory, which contradicted the dates recorded in the forensic report. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the contraband. Relying on established precedents, the Court ruled that any break in the chain of custody renders the forensic report unreliable and creates reasonable doubt, which must be resolved in favor of the accused. The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and the appellant acquitted.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy in the dates of sample transmission to a forensic laboratory create a fatal break in the chain of custody?
- Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody and transmission of a narcotic sample to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Can a conviction be sustained if the prosecution fails to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized contraband?
- Rashid Ali vs Manzoor Ahmed2021 SHC 1332 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, Rashid Ali, who is accused in FIR No. 124/2021 registered at Police Station Gambat. The applicant sought relief after his initial pre-arrest bail plea was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Khairpur. The core legal question before the court was whether the applicant, who was alleged to have instigated the co-accused, met the threshold for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the evidentiary record. Upon reviewing the material, the court observed that the investigation failed to produce evidence placing the applicant at the scene of the incident or establishing the specific time and manner of the alleged abetment. Consequently, the court held that the applicant's case warranted further inquiry, thereby entitling him to the confirmation of his interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to provide material evidence linking an accused to the alleged offense, particularly regarding allegations of instigation or abetment, the case requires further inquiry, justifying the grant or confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Does the absence of evidence placing an accused at the scene of the crime or specifying the time of alleged abetment entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
- Is a case of alleged instigation subject to further inquiry when the investigation fails to produce supporting material?
- Rashid Ahmed vs Government Of Gilgit-Baltistan through Chief Secretary2021 MLD 429 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-10-12Read full judgment →
- Rasheeda Begum vs Ibrar Bi and 2 others2021 PLJ Lahore 434 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
- Rasheed Ahmed alias Pappu Baydeed vs The State and another2021 MLD 928 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 1400 grams of Charas. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved the recovery, safe custody, and safe transmission of the narcotics beyond reasonable doubt, and the effect of withholding a material witness. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered substance to the forensic science agency, and that the non-production of the constable who carried the complaint to the police station gave rise to an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered his acquittal. The key principles laid down are that the failure of the prosecution to prove safe custody and safe transmission of narcotics is fatal to its case, and withholding a vital witness warrants an adverse presumption.
Questions settled- What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to prove safe custody and safe transmission of recovered narcotics to the forensic science agency?
- Does the non-production of the police constable who carried the complaint to the police station warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- Can a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be sustained when material gaps exist in the chain of custody of the recovered substance?
- Rasheed Ahmad and others vs The State and others2021 MLD 1912 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.1691 of 2020 registered under Sections 440, 148, 149, 337-F(i), 337-F(iii) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ghalib Market, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail in a case involving two competing versions of the incident, where the cross-version brought by the accused was supported by a Medico-Legal Certificate but remained uninvestigated by the police. The court held that the presence of two conflicting versions, neither of which had been fully investigated despite supporting medical evidence, brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendering the false implication of the petitioners plausible. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners, laying down the principle that an uninvestigated cross-version supported by medical evidence can constitute grounds for further inquiry warranting pre-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when a case involves two conflicting versions and the version presented by the accused is supported by a Medico-Legal Certificate but has not been investigated?
- Does the failure of the investigating officer to probe the accused's version of events make the case one of further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
- Can false implication of the accused be inferred at the pre-arrest bail stage when competing versions exist between the parties?
- Rashad Ali vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 752 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife through an acid attack, under Sections 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(a), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether a statement recorded by the police under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, from an injured victim who subsequently survived for several days before dying, qualifies as a valid dying declaration admissible as substantive evidence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction. The Court held that the law prescribes no specific mode or forum for recording a dying declaration; it is admissible even if recorded by police under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, provided it is free from influence and trustworthy. The Court established that a statement need not be made under immediate apprehension of death to be valid, and the victim's survival for several days does not negate its status. Such a declaration constitutes substantive evidence, and while corroboration is a rule of prudence, it is not a strict rule of law.
Questions settled- Can a statement recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, by an injured person who survives for several days be treated as a valid dying declaration?
- Is a dying declaration required to be made under immediate apprehension of death to be admissible as evidence?
- Does the law require a specific forum or format for recording a dying declaration?
- Is corroboration of a dying declaration a strict rule of law or a rule of prudence?
- Rao Talib Hussain & others vs SSGC2021 SHC 958 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-21Read full judgment →
- Rao Taj Muhammad vs Secretary Establishment & others2021 SHC 24 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
- Rao Muhammad Daim vs Province of Sindh and Ors2021 SHC 200 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-22Read full judgment →
- Rao Muhammad Azeem vs Government of Sindh & others2021 SHC 382 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, a police official, by the respondent-Police Department via a show-cause notice issued under the Sindh Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1988. The core legal question is whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain a challenge against ongoing disciplinary proceedings involving a civil servant, or if such matters fall exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal. The Court held that, pursuant to Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 3(2) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1974, the High Court's jurisdiction is barred in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, including disciplinary proceedings. The Court affirmed that the Service Tribunal holds exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction for the competent authority to conclude the pending disciplinary proceedings within two months, ensuring the petitioner is provided a meaningful hearing and that his defense is duly considered.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging ongoing disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
- Does the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1974 grant the Service Tribunal exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary matters of civil servants?
- Can the High Court interfere in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Rao Khalid Iqbal vs State, etc2021 LHC 7894 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Through this criminal revision petition, the petitioner challenged the order of the Special Judge (Central), Multan, dismissing his application to recall an earlier order whereby his right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses was closed due to repeated adjournments and non-availability of his counsel. The core legal question was whether closing the right of cross-examination and failing to provide a meaningful opportunity for defense testing violates the fundamental right to a fair trial. The Lahore High Court held that while the accused delayed the proceedings, asking an unrepresented accused with no legal expertise to cross-examine witnesses himself is no substitute for defense counsel. Emphasizing that cross-examination is an essential ingredient of a fair trial and due process, the court set aside the impugned orders and granted one final opportunity to the petitioner's counsel to cross-examine the witnesses. The key principle laid down is that the right of cross-examination cannot be arbitrarily denied, and in the absence of a defense counsel, the trial court must ensure fairness rather than relying on un-rebutted testimonies.
Questions settled- Can an accused person be deprived of their right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses for delaying the trial?
- Is asking an unrepresented accused to cross-examine witnesses himself a valid substitute for a defense counsel?
- Whether the closure of the right of cross-examination prejudices the case of an accused person in criminal proceedings?
- Does the right to a fair trial and due process mandate that an accused must be provided an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses?
- Rao Imran Nasir vs Defence Housing Authority, Lahore and others2021 YLR 1819 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-30Read full judgment →
- Ranjan vs The State2021 SHC 64 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a criminal case where the applicant sought post-arrest bail after being refused by the Sessions Court. The applicant was charged along with others for forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries to the complainant and prosecution witnesses with iron rods and lathies. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry, considering the delayed FIR, counter version of the incident, and a pre-existing dispute over a fish pond. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant made out a case for further inquiry due to an unexplained sixteen-day delay in lodging the FIR, the existence of a counter version requiring trial determination, and the underlying property dispute. The court laid down the principle that unexplained delay in FIR registration and the presence of a counter version are material considerations warranting the grant of post-arrest bail pending trial.
Questions settled- Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR constitutes a ground for post-arrest bail?
- Does the existence of a counter version of the incident make the case one of further inquiry under Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
- Whether bail should be granted when parties have a pre-existing property dispute and attribute specific roles in a delayed FIR?
- Rana Tahir Hussain vs Additional District Judge, Faisalabad etc2021 PLJ Lahore 229 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-17Read full judgment →
- Rana Sher Afzal vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1396 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged issuance of dishonoured cheques. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner made out a case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail in view of an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, police findings during investigation that the petitioner had paid excess amounts and nothing was outstanding, and a pending civil suit for rendition of accounts filed by the petitioner. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and confirmed the pre-arrest bail, holding that mala fide on the part of the complainant for false implication could not be ruled out given the specific facts and circumstances. The key principle laid down is that the liberty of a person is a precious constitutional right, and courts can evaluate and consider mala fide from the surrounding facts and circumstances of a case while deciding pre-arrest bail matters.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when police investigation concludes that no amount is outstanding against the accused?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR support a finding of mala fide for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can the pendency of a civil suit for rendition of accounts between the parties be a ground for establishing mala fide in a criminal case?
- Rana Sana Ullah Khan vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and 2 others2021 P Cr. L J 1289 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a Call-Up Notice issued by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) regarding the petitioner's assets, which were already subject to freezing orders and ongoing proceedings before a Special Court under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether NAB could initiate an inquiry into assets already under the jurisdiction of another competent court without invoking the transfer provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The Court held that NAB lacked the authority to take cognizance of the matter without first invoking Section 16-A(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, to transfer the case. Furthermore, the Court observed that the timing of the notice—issued immediately after the petitioner was granted bail in a separate narcotics case—suggested mala fide intent. Consequently, the Court confirmed the petitioner's pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that NAB cannot bypass established judicial proceedings regarding the same assets without adhering to the statutory transfer mechanism provided under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.
Questions settled- Can the National Accountability Bureau initiate an inquiry into assets already subject to freezing orders and proceedings before a Special Court under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Is the National Accountability Bureau required to invoke Section 16-A(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, to take cognizance of a matter already pending before another court of competent jurisdiction?
- Does the timing of a Call-Up Notice issued immediately after the grant of bail in a separate criminal case constitute evidence of mala fide intent?
- Rana Muhammad Ilyas vs Lahore Electric Supply Company and others2021 PLC 75 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had set aside a Labour Court decision in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner, a former employee of the Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO), sought reinstatement following his acquittal in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's grievance petition was time-barred and whether his conduct demonstrated a failure to pursue his legal remedies with due diligence. The Court held that the petitioner failed to follow the mandatory grievance procedure prescribed under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, and instead engaged in protracted, unnecessary litigation to circumvent limitation periods. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner was indolent and had not acted with the vigilance required by law. The key principle laid down is that the law of limitation is mandatory, not a mere formality, and courts will not extend a helping hand to litigants who remain in 'deep slumber' regarding their rights, as the law aids the vigilant and not the indolent.
Questions settled- Does the law of limitation apply to grievance petitions filed under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
- Can a litigant bypass mandatory statutory grievance procedures by filing multiple writ petitions to avoid limitation bars?
- Is a party who remains inactive regarding their legal rights for an extended period entitled to relief from the High Court?
- Rana Muhammad Ikram Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1693 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 54/2020 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the dishonour of a cheque issued to the Metropolitan Corporation, Sahiwal, for property conversion fees. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was neither the signatory of the cheque nor a joint account holder, could be held criminally liable under Section 489-F, PPC. The Court held that liability under Section 489-F, PPC, is strictly limited to the person who issued the cheque. As the petitioner did not sign the instrument and the cheque was issued for a conversion fee rather than a loan or obligation repayment, the Court found the registration of the case against the petitioner to be mala fide. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim bail, establishing the principle that criminal liability under Section 489-F, PPC, cannot be extended to persons who are not signatories to the dishonoured cheque, particularly when the transaction involves a regulatory fee rather than a personal loan or obligation.
Questions settled- Can a person who is neither the signatory nor a joint account holder be held liable under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the issuance of a cheque for a property conversion fee constitute an obligation under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What are the essential ingredients required to attract criminal liability under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Rana Muhammad Hanif Khan (Deceased) through LRs vs Saddiq Khan2022 SCMR 852 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside a trial court decree and held that the Civil Courts of Pakistan lacked jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of compensation and damages, and that the suit was also barred by time. The core legal questions involved the territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction of Pakistani civil courts over a dispute concerning foreign immovable property and foreign income, as well as the question of limitation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Sections 16 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Pakistani courts lack jurisdiction where the subject matter property is situated abroad and the defendant permanently resides outside Pakistan, and that the claim was hopelessly barred by time. The key principle laid down is that the presence of a defendant within the territorial jurisdiction of Pakistan does not confer jurisdiction upon Pakistani courts under Sections 16 or 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the property and cause of action are situated outside Pakistan.
Questions settled- Do Civil Courts in Pakistan have jurisdiction to entertain a suit where the subject-matter property is situated outside Pakistan and the defendant permanently resides abroad?
- Whether the presence of a defendant within the territorial jurisdiction of Pakistan grants jurisdiction to Pakistani courts under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the property in question is situated outside Pakistan?
- Can a suit filed decades after the termination of a financial relationship and after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation be maintained in a civil court?
- Rana Muhammad Ashraf vs Manzoor Ahmad and others2021 PLJ Lahore 549, 2021 MLD 794 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-07Read full judgment →
- Rana Kashif Ali vs Chief Secretary, etc2021 LHC 4742, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1082 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment resolves a series of consolidated constitutional petitions and contempt matters filed by an employee challenging orders of transfer, posting, suspension, and dismissal from service passed by the Local Government and Community Development Department of Punjab. The core legal questions involved the legal effect of an interim injunctive relief granted only until the next date of hearing when it is not explicitly extended, whether a department can benefit from its own illegality by passing adverse orders during such stay, and the proportionality of dismissing the petitioner given the department's own contributory negligence. The Lahore High Court held that time-bound injunctive relief remains in force until specifically vacated or modified by the court, and an administrative body cannot reap benefits from violating it. The court further held that the extreme penalty of dismissal was disproportionate and excessive under the circumstances. The key principles laid down include the continuing operational nature of interim stay orders despite efflux of time, the doctrine of proportionality in administrative disciplinary actions, and the court's inherent power to restore parties to their original position upon violation of an injunction.
Questions settled- What is the legal effect of non-extension of an order granting injunctive relief when said relief was granted till the next date of hearing?
- Can the respondent-department be allowed to reap benefits out of its own illegality by passing adverse orders during the pendency of a stay?
- Whether the penalty of dismissal imposed on the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case is proportionate or excessive?
- Does an interim stay order lapse automatically if it is not expressly extended on subsequent dates of hearing due to court dockets?
- Rana Ghulam Abbas vs Sidra Ghaus etc2021 PLJ Lahore 132 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-04Read full judgment →
- Rana Basit Rice Mills Private Limited vs Shaheen Insurance Company and another2021 SCP 268, 2021 CLD 960, 2021 SCMR 1413, 2022 PCTLR 396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a private limited company, suffered stock and machinery losses due to a severe storm and lodged an insurance claim with the respondent insurer. The insurer's appointed surveyor assessed the loss, but the claim was not paid within the statutory period, prompting the appellant to file an insurance petition before the Insurance Tribunal. The insurer raised a preliminary objection that the petition was not accompanied by a Board Resolution authorizing the Chief Executive to file it, seeking rejection under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Tribunal allowed the appellant's application to amend the petition and place the subsequent Board Resolution on record, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant on merits. The Lahore High Court accepted the insurer's appeal and set aside the Tribunal's order solely on the ground of the initial absence of the Board Resolution. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the initial absence of a Board Resolution does not invalidate the institution of a suit or petition if the Articles of Association empower the person, and such a procedural defect is curable by a subsequently produced resolution or ratification. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Insurance Tribunal's decision.
Questions settled- Does the absence of a Board Resolution at the time of filing a suit or petition by a company invalidate the proceedings ab initio?
- Can a procedural defect regarding the lack of authorization to file a legal proceeding on behalf of a company be cured by placing a Board Resolution on record at a subsequent date?
- When are the Articles of Association of a company sufficient to empower a person or director to institute legal action without a separate Board Resolution?
- Whether the subsequent ratification of an unauthorized legal proceeding by a principal cures the initial defect under the doctrine of agency?
- Ramzan Sugar Mills Limited vs Federal Board Of Revenue and others2021 PTD 1321 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a notice issued by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) under Section 122(9) read with Section 122(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The petitioner contended that the notice, which sought documents to amend the tax assessment for the 2015 tax year, was issued with mala fide intent and was procedurally flawed. The core legal question was whether the High Court should interfere with a show-cause notice issued by tax authorities before a final order is passed, and whether the tax period in question fell outside the scope of Section 122(4). The Court held that the petition was premature because no adverse order had been passed, and the petitioner had adequate alternate remedies under the Ordinance. Emphasizing the Doctrine of Ripeness and the statutory appeal mechanism, the Court directed the petitioner to comply with the notice, while restraining the authorities from taking coercive measures until the matter is adjudicated, thereby upholding the principle that tax disputes should be resolved through the prescribed appellate hierarchy before seeking judicial review.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere with a tax notice issued under Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, before a final order is passed?
- Does the Doctrine of Ripeness preclude judicial review of a show-cause notice issued by tax authorities?
- Is the Commissioner empowered to amend an original assessment order multiple times under Section 122(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
- Does the existence of an inbuilt statutory appeal mechanism under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, bar a constitutional petition against a preliminary tax notice?
- Ramesh Kymal vs M/s Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Pvt Ltd2021 SCInd 66 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-02-09Read full judgment →
- Ram Vijay Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh2021 SCInd 108 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The present appeal arises from an order passed by the High Court dismissing the appellant's appeal against his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court related to the determination of the appellant's claim of juvenility on the date of the incident and whether partial discrediting of a prosecution witness warrants total rejection of testimony under the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. The Court held that the appellant was not a juvenile on the date of the incident, relying on his own earlier declaration of date of birth in an arms licence application and noting that an ossification test conducted decades later on a person aged between 40-55 years cannot yield conclusive results. Furthermore, the Court held that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applied as a rule of law in India, but merely as a rule of caution, meaning that a witness's testimony can be believed in part. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a claim of juvenility be raised at any stage, including after final disposal of the case before the Supreme Court?
- Is an ossification test conclusive for determining the age of a person who has crossed thirty years or is aged 40-55 years?
- Whether the legal maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is applicable as a mandatory rule of evidence in Indian courts?
- Can a part of a prosecution witness's testimony be believed even if another part is disbelieved regarding a co-accused?
- Rakhshanda Jamal vs Shahid-Ul-Hassan and 2 others2021 P Cr. L J 1598 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought to set aside an order passed by the trial court dismissing her application under Section 22-A(6)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the transfer of investigation to the Crimes Branch regarding the alleged abduction of her daughters. The core legal question was whether an application for reinvestigation is competent before a Justice of Peace or trial court after the completion of investigation, submission of challan, framing of charge, and recording of prosecution evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that while police may conduct further investigation and submit a supplementary challan prior to the final disposal of a case by the trial court, provisions under Sections 22-A and 22-B do not interfere with judicial functions once cognizance is taken, and an application for reinvestigation at a belated trial stage is meritless. The court further held that a petitioner who makes a misstatement regarding court observations does not approach the court with clean hands. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether an application under Section 22-A(6)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is competent after the submission of a challan and commencement of the trial?
- Does any legal bar exist for the police to carry out a reinvestigation or submit a supplementary challan after the submission of a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can reinvestigation of a criminal case be allowed after the case has been finally disposed of by a trial court?
- Does a petitioner making a misstatement regarding previous court orders qualify for discretionary and equitable relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Rakhshanda Jamal vs Shahid-Ul-Hassan 5 others2021 YLR 90 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-02-14Read full judgment →
- Rajan vs Amjad Ali and others2021 LHC 7819, 2022 MLD 607, 2022 PLJ Lahore 331 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-10Read full judgment →
- Raja Shoukat Hayat & Co. Contractor Food Department, Azad Jammu &2021 SC AJK 82 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-11-19Read full judgment →
- Raja Shaukat Aziz Bhatti vs Election Commission Of Pakistan and another2021 MLD 1616 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-07-28Read full judgment →