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.
- Raja Muhammad Yousaf (deceased) through LRs vs Muhammad Ashraf, etc2021 PLJ Lahore 870 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Raja Mazhar Abbas vs Federation of Pakistan through M_o Defence, Rawalpindi & 03 others2021 IHC 82 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Raja Fida Hussain Hafeez vs Deputy Director-I, Estate Management2021 PTD 1710, 2022 [M] CLR 683, 2022 PCTLR 751 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-03Read full judgment →
- Raja Fahad vs The State and another2022 YLR 901 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitnesses, the admissibility and use of modern forensic science including CCTV footage and forensic fingerprint analysis of the weapon, and whether an offence committed during a sudden quarrel without premeditation falls under section 302(c) rather than section 302(b). The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitness testimony corroborated by CCTV footage and Punjab Forensic Science Agency reports proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, because the fatal stabbing occurred during a sudden exchange of hot words and heat of passion without premeditation or undue advantage, the court altered the conviction from section 302(b) to section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the death sentence to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment while maintaining compensation orders, and answered the murder reference in the negative.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court has the power under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to requisition CCTV footage during trial when it was not collected during police investigation?
- Can modern forensic evidence and CCTV footage be legally relied upon for a criminal conviction under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Whether a fatal assault committed during a sudden quarrel without premeditation and in the heat of passion attracts section 302(c) instead of section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is a forensic report detailing latent fingerprints on a weapon admissible under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without examining the expert as a witness?
- Raja Azhar Hayat vs Additional District Judge/Gas Utility Court and others2021 CLC 2109 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
- Rai Sarfraz etc vs Atta Muhammad etc2021 PLJ Lahore 324 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-19Read full judgment →
- Rai Muhammad Ashraf vs Additional Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib and 6 others2022 PLD Lahore 409 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-30Read full judgment →
- Rahul vs State of Haryana2021 SCInd 124 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act 1959. The core legal question concerned whether the circumstantial evidence, including the theory of last seen together, medical evidence, and weapon recovery, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully proved a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence pointing unmistakably to the guilt of the appellant. The Court laid down that the testimony of close relatives of a deceased cannot be discarded solely on the ground of relationship if natural and corroborated by other evidence, and that the circumstance of last seen together, coupled with reliable weapon recovery linked through forensic analysis and established motive, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under circumstantial evidence.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be based solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events is fully established by the prosecution?
- Whether the testimony of close relatives of a deceased can be rejected merely on the ground that they are interested witnesses?
- Does the circumstance of last seen together, when combined with corroborative forensic evidence and weapon recovery, sufficiently prove the guilt of an accused?
- Is the establishment of motive essential to secure a conviction when other direct and circumstantial evidence clearly proves the commission of the offence by the accused?
- Rahim vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 509 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Rahim, who was accused in Crime No.141/2019 registered under sections 269, 270, and 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gharo for allegedly possessing and selling banned and hazardous Gutka/Mawa. The core legal question was whether the applicant made out a case for further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that offences under sections 269 and 270 are bailable, no poisonous substance was administered to anyone under section 337-J, the case relied entirely on police witnesses without independent mashirs from a populated area, and the complainant also acted as the investigating officer. The Sindh High Court allowed the bail application, holding that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The key principle laid down is that where a narcotics or hazardous substance case rests solely on police evidence without independent corroboration, the complainant also acts as the investigating officer, and offences do not fall squarely within the prohibitory clause, the scales tilt in favour of granting post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Does the absence of independent private mashirs in a populated area warrant post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Whether a case where the complainant also acts as the investigating officer requires minute scrutiny of evidence, favouring bail?
- Does an offence under section 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code attract the prohibitory clause when no poisonous material has been administered to any person?
- Whether continuous custody of an accused without the necessity of further investigation entitles them to post-arrest bail under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.?
- Rahim Gul vs Government Of The Punjab through Secretary, Forest, Fisheries and Wildlife, Lahore and 2 others2021 PLJ Lahore 781 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-22Read full judgment →
- Rahim Dad vs Saeeda Khanum2021 LHC 7661 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-26Read full judgment →
- Rahim Bakhsh vs The State2021 MLD 553 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of two kilograms of charas and 26 grams of crystal from his possession. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail based on the argument that the quantity recovered was a 'borderline' case and that the court should consider the likely sentence rather than the maximum statutory punishment. The court held that the application was without merit and dismissed it. Relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in 'Socha Gul v. State', the court determined that at the bail stage, it is improper to engage in speculative exercises regarding the quantum of sentence or to pre-empt the trial court's sentencing discretion. Furthermore, the court emphasized that narcotics offences are heinous crimes against society, and the statutory caution under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, must be observed, rendering the 'borderline' quantity argument inapplicable in this instance.
Questions settled- Is it permissible for a court at the bail stage to speculate on the quantum of sentence likely to be awarded to an accused?
- Does the recovery of a quantity marginally exceeding the threshold for a lesser offence entitle an accused to bail in narcotics cases?
- Should a court consider the maximum statutory sentence when deciding a bail application for a narcotics offence?
- Is the principle of 'borderline' quantity applicable to bail applications involving the recovery of both charas and crystal?
- Raheem Gul vs NADRA etc2021 PHC 310, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 27 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-23Read full judgment →
- Raheem Bux S/O Allah Bux vs Rubina Qadir, D.P.G2021 SHC 990 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the alleged recovery of 2010 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the statutory bar to bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 applied to the applicant given the quantity of narcotics recovered and the rule of consistency regarding co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Court held that the bar to bail under Section 51(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is not attracted where the quantity of narcotics recovered does not reach the threshold (10 kilograms) required to trigger the maximum punishment of death or life imprisonment. Relying on the principle established in Khuda Bakhsh v. The State (2015 SCMR 735), the Court determined that the offence did not fall within the category attracting the statutory prohibition against bail. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant, emphasizing that the degree of punishment and the applicability of bail bars are contingent upon the specific quantity of the narcotic substance recovered.
Questions settled- Does the statutory bar to bail under Section 51(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 apply to offences involving less than 10 kilograms of narcotics?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail under the rule of consistency if co-accused with similar roles have already been granted bail?
- Does the degree of punishment under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 depend on the quantity of the narcotic recovered?
- Raheem Bux alias Hakim Ali Chachar vs The State2021 SHC 890 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail before-arrest application filed by the applicant, Raheem Bux alias Hakim Ali Chachar, challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore, which denied him pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 324, 337-H (2), 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the allegations of a murderous assault, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, noting that the injuries sustained by the complainant's brother were not declared dangerous and that the incident stemmed from a pre-existing dispute between the parties. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim bail, directing the applicant to face trial. The key principle laid down is that where injuries are not dangerous and the incident arises from a prior dispute, the incarceration of an accused pending trial may not serve a useful purpose, thereby justifying the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Does the absence of dangerous injuries justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case involving a firearm assault?
- Can a trial court cancel bail if the accused misuses the concession of bail during proceedings?
- Is a delay in lodging an FIR a relevant factor for the court to consider when deciding on a pre-arrest bail application?
- Rafique Ahmad vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa etc2021 PHC 52 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a temporary Patwari, filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the appointment of respondents as regular Patwaris. The petitioner claimed seniority and a preferential right to regular appointment. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner, having accepted a temporary appointment with no seniority rights, could claim regular appointment, and whether he remained eligible for selection despite his existing employment and age status. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner’s acceptance of a temporary post rendered him unavailable for the approved list of candidates under the Land Record Manual. The Court further held that the petitioner was ineligible due to being overage, noting that specific departmental rules governing Patwaris strictly limit age and preclude the application of general age relaxation rules applicable to other civil servants. The key principle established is that terms of appointment regarding seniority are binding, and specific service rules governing a particular cadre override general recruitment policies regarding age relaxation and eligibility.
Questions settled- Does the acceptance of a temporary appointment with no seniority rights preclude a candidate from claiming seniority for regular appointment?
- Does employment in a temporary post render a candidate unavailable for the approved list of Patwari candidates under the Land Record Manual?
- Are the general age relaxation rules for provincial civil servants applicable to the post of Patwari?
- Can a candidate claim age relaxation for the post of Patwari beyond the limit prescribed by the specific departmental rules?
- Rafi Ullah vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 218 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed by the petitioner, Rafi Ullah, seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged murder of Mst. Parveen. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidence collected during the investigation. The Court examined the prosecution's case, which alleged that the petitioner shot the deceased with a .30-bore pistol, a version corroborated by the post-mortem report and the recovery of the weapon of offense. Furthermore, the prosecution witnesses maintained their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the material collected during the investigation established reasonable grounds to connect the petitioner to the commission of the offense. As the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court dismissed the bail petition, finding it devoid of merit. The key principle reaffirmed is that where reasonable grounds exist to connect an accused to a non-bailable offense falling under the prohibitory clause, bail should be refused.
Questions settled- Does an offense under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail appropriate when the prosecution has collected material establishing reasonable grounds to connect the accused to the offense?
- Rafi Ullah Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 365 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Through this petition, the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 192/2018 registered under Sections 324 and 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Pai Khel, District Mianwali. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, considering the delay in lodging the FIR, discrepancy between weapon blows and medical injuries, and the non-prohibitory nature of the offense. The Lahore High Court held that due to the unexplained seven-day delay in reporting, conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the number of injuries, and the offense falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., the case warranted further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that in offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause, grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception, and further detention of an accused whose investigation is complete serves no useful purpose.
Questions settled- Does a delay in lodging the FIR combined with a discrepancy between ocular accounts and medical evidence make out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether bail should be granted as a rule in offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is further detention of an accused justified when investigation is complete and the accused's physical custody is no longer required by the police?
- Rafi Ahmad vs Province of Punjab, etc2021 PLJ Lahore 710, 2021 LHC 1409 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former contractual employee of the Punjab Information Technology Board, challenged his dismissal by filing a constitutional petition seeking a mandamus to compel the authorities to decide his representation, asserting he should be treated at par with regular civil servants who were reinstated. The core legal question was whether a contractual employee, whose service is governed by contract, can invoke the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction for reinstatement or to force the adjudication of a representation. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that contractual employment is governed by the principle of master and servant, and such employees lack the right to seek reinstatement or parity with regular civil servants through constitutional petitions. The judgment establishes that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to perpetuate "litigious employment" or to coerce authorities into entertaining legally non-maintainable representations. It further clarifies that contractual employees are strictly bound by their contract terms, which do not confer the statutory protections or pensionary benefits afforded to regular civil servants, thereby distinguishing the two categories of employment.
Questions settled- Can a contractual employee invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court to seek reinstatement?
- Is a contractual employee entitled to be treated at par with regular civil servants regarding service protections?
- Can a High Court issue a writ of mandamus to compel an executive authority to decide a representation that is not maintainable under the law or contract?
- Does the principle of master and servant apply to government contractual employees?
- Rafeeq-Ul-Islam vs Principal Government Girls Inter College Kel, District2021 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 16 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Rafeed Niaz vs The State and another2021 SCMR 1467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the denial of post-arrest bail by the High Court in a case registered under sections 324 and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to bail, specifically considering the evidentiary value of a medical report that declared an injury "grievous" without specifying its dimensions or statutory classification. The Supreme Court held that the medical report was materially deficient because it failed to define the nature of the injury or provide necessary dimensions, rendering it insufficient as material evidence. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner’s case fell within the scope of "further inquiry" as envisaged under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Given that the investigation was complete and the petitioner was no longer required for further proceedings, the Court set aside the impugned order and admitted the petitioner to bail. The judgment establishes that a vague medical opinion lacking specific statutory classification or physical dimensions does not constitute sufficient evidence to deny bail.
Questions settled- Does a medical report declaring an injury 'grievous' without specifying its dimensions or statutory classification constitute sufficient evidence to deny bail?
- When does a criminal case qualify for 'further inquiry' under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a medical report that fails to provide the dimensions of an injury considered materially deficient for the purpose of bail adjudication?
- Rafeed Niaz vs State and-anotherPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose out of a post-arrest bail application filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in a case registered under Sections 324 and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of firing at his sister's brother-in-law, inflicting an injury on his buttock. The petitioner contended that the medical evidence was deficient as the doctor declared the injury grievous without specifying its dimensions or standard legal classification under the statute, making the case one of further inquiry. The Supreme Court observed that although the medical report labeled the injury grievous, it failed to state the category or dimensions of the injury, rendering the medical report deficient in material detail and insufficient as conclusive material evidence. Concluding that the investigation was complete and further incarceration served no useful purpose, the Court held that the case fell within sub-section (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned order, and admitted the petitioner to bail.
Questions settled- Does a medical report declaring an injury grievous without specifying its dimension or statutory classification render the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the investigation is complete and the medical evidence is materially deficient regarding the nature of the injury?
- Rafaqat Khan (alias Bobi) vs The State2021 MLD 738 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Special Court (CNS), Islamabad, convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved the recovery of narcotics beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in view of material discrepancies in the testimonies of recovery witnesses, a six-day delay in transmitting the sample parcel to the chemical examiner in violation of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, and a competing defense plea of false implication. The Islamabad High Court held that glaring flaws and omissions in the statements of recovery witnesses break the chain of events and that, pursuant to the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, unreliable witness testimony cannot be salvaged by piecemeal acceptance. The court laid down the principle that deliberate falsehoods by witnesses on material aspects require discarding their testimony entirely, and that a complete, flawless chain of custody and events is mandatory to sustain a narcotics conviction.
Questions settled- Whether material contradictions and omissions in the statements of recovery witnesses can be overlooked by applying the principle of sifting grain from the chaff?
- Does a delay of six days in transmitting a sample parcel to the office of the Chemical Examiner violate the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
- Is the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus an integral part of criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan?
- Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish a complete and flawless chain of events?
- Rachna & Ors vs Union of India & Anr2021 SCInd 104 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-02-24Read full judgment →
- Rabnawaz vs Z.T.B.L. Katlang Branch Mardan through Branch Manater2021 CLD 1301, 2022 PCTLR 427 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-24Read full judgment →
- Rabia Ahmad vs Bilal Ejaz2022 SCMR 733, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 88, 2022 PSC 598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for the transfer of execution proceedings from a Family Court in Rawalpindi to a Family Court in Islamabad. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court possesses the authority to transfer cases between a court in a province and a court in the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) under Section 25-A(2-B) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. The Court held that Section 25-A(2-B) of the Act, which permits transfers between provinces, does not explicitly cover transfers to or from the ICT, creating a legislative lacuna. However, the Court determined that it could exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to ensure 'complete justice' by filling this gap. The principle laid down is that where statutory provisions for case transfer are insufficient to address the needs of litigants in the ICT, the Supreme Court may invoke its inherent powers under Article 187 to order such transfers to prevent injustice and facilitate expeditious disposal of proceedings.
Questions settled- Does Section 25-A(2-B) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 authorize the transfer of cases between a court in a province and a court in the Islamabad Capital Territory?
- Can the Supreme Court exercise its jurisdiction under Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to fill a legislative gap regarding the transfer of cases?
- Does the Supreme Court have the power to transfer family court proceedings to ensure complete justice where the statute is silent?
- Rab Nawaz vs The State and others2021 P Cr. L J 1192 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This post-arrest bail petition was filed by the petitioner who was accused of transporting 3290 grams of Charas recovered from underneath the front seat of his car, leading to an offense registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner contended that the prosecution's story was concocted because he suffered from a severe physical disability rendering him unable to drive. A medical report from the Superintendent of District Jail, Jhang, confirmed that the petitioner could not walk without support, his left leg remained straight due to the removal of his knee joint, and he was admitted to the jail hospital. The Lahore High Court observed that the petitioner was a previous non-record holder, the investigation was complete, and the Chemical Examiner's report was still awaited. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that the petitioner's physical hazards and the presumption of innocence justified the grant of bail. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and post-arrest bail was granted subject to furnishing bail bonds.
Questions settled- Whether a petitioner's severe physical disability and inability to walk or drive without support can make a case fit for the grant of post-arrest bail in a narcotics case?
- Does the non-receipt of the Chemical Examiner's report, coupled with the completion of investigation and lack of previous criminal record, support the grant of bail in a narcotics offense?
- Rab Nawaz Khan vs Javed Khan Swati2021 CLD 1261, 2021 SCMR 1890, 2022 PSC 217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the recovery of Rs. 620,000 based on a dishonoured cheque. The respondent contended that the cheque was not meant for encashment but was merely issued as an acknowledgment or receipt for an investment. The trial court and the High Court dismissed the suit, suggesting the appellant recover the amount through pending suits for rendition of accounts. The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts' findings, holding that under Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, a cheque is a bill of exchange payable on demand and intended for immediate payment. Furthermore, under Section 118(a) of the Act, there is a rebuttable presumption that every negotiable instrument is drawn for consideration. The Court ruled that a bare denial is insufficient to rebut this presumption, and the burden of proof lies on the defendant. Since the respondent failed to produce independent evidence and had even revalidated the cheque, the presumption stood unrebutted, and the appeal was allowed.
Questions settled- Whether a cheque can be legally treated as a mere acknowledgment or receipt rather than an instrument for immediate payment?
- On which party does the burden of proof lie to rebut the presumption of consideration under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881?
- Is a bare denial by the defendant sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption that a negotiable instrument was drawn for consideration?
- What is the legal effect of a drawer revalidating a dishonoured cheque on their subsequent claim that the cheque was not meant for encashment?
- Quratulain Ibrahim Arain vs Government Of Sindh through Secretary2021 MLD 1215 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
- Quetta Development Authority through Director General, Q.D.a vs Sajjad2021 YLR 795 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
- Quetta Development Authority through Director General vs Abdul Basit and others2021 PSC 1654, 2021 SCMR 1313, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 94, 2022 PLC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case concerns appeals filed by the Quetta Development Authority (QDA) against a High Court judgment that ordered the reinstatement of employees whose appointments were initially cancelled. The QDA had withdrawn appointment orders for various posts, citing financial difficulties. In an earlier round of litigation, the High Court set aside similar cancellation orders for other affected employees, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. The present respondents, similarly affected but not part of the initial litigation, sought reinstatement, which was granted by the High Court. The Supreme Court considered whether the respondents' petitions were barred by laches and if they were entitled to equal treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the issue of appointment cancellation was res judicata and could not be re-agitated. It affirmed that the respondents, being similarly placed as those who received relief earlier, were entitled to the same treatment under Article 25, and the principle of laches would not apply to deny a fundamental right in such circumstances, especially when earlier judgments had attained finality.
- Qazi Zaheer Ahmad vs Federal Ombudsman Secretariat For Protection2021 PLC (C.S.) 839 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged proceedings pending before the Federal Ombudsman for Protection Against Harassment at Workplace, Islamabad, arising from a harassment complaint. The petitioner contended that a prior compromise agreement reached before the Inquiry Committee barred the complainant from pursuing the matter before the Ombudsman, and that the proceedings suffered from jurisdictional defects. The core legal question concerned whether a compromise agreement reached during informal counseling before an Inquiry Committee bars a complainant from subsequently approaching the Federal Ombudsman upon an alleged breach of assurances, and the extent of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 199 in light of ouster clauses. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the compromise agreement was conditional and that the complainant retained the right to re-initiate her complaint upon an alleged breach of undertakings. The Court laid down that under the Protection against Harassment at the Workplace Act, 2010, an employee has the option to approach either the Inquiry Committee or the Ombudsman, and constitutional courts will exercise judicial review over proceedings before an Ombudsman only in cases of jurisdictional defect, coram non judice, mala fides, or violation of fundamental rights.
Questions settled- Does a compromise agreement reached before an Inquiry Committee bar a complainant from subsequently pursuing a harassment complaint before the Federal Ombudsman?
- Whether an employee has the option to file a harassment complaint either before the Inquiry Committee or the Federal Ombudsman under the Protection against Harassment at the Workplace Act, 2010?
- Under what circumstances can a constitutional court exercise jurisdiction in relation to proceedings pending before an Ombudsman in view of Section 18 of the Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act, 2013?
- Does a subsequent disciplinary action following a workplace harassment compromise amount to reprisal and victimization falling within the jurisdiction of the Federal Ombudsman?
- Qazi Laique Ahmad and 3 others vs Chairman Nab and 2 others2021 P Cr. L J 567 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges two interlocutory orders passed by the Accountability Court in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference, wherein the trial court refused to remove exhibit marks from certain documents produced by the Investigating Officer and subsequently permitted the prosecution to exhibit original recovery memos during the examination-in-chief. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution can produce additional documents or recovery memos through an investigating officer during a trial, and whether a delayed challenge to an interlocutory order via constitutional jurisdiction is barred by laches. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court has wide powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, read with Section 17 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, to allow the production of relevant documents essential for the just decision of a case, provided the accused are given full opportunity of cross-examination without suffering legal prejudice. Furthermore, the Court held that a constitutional petition challenging an interlocutory order after an unexplained delay of nearly six months suffers from laches and is barred. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the prosecution produce additional documents or recovery memos through the Investigating Officer during his examination-in-chief in a trial?
- Whether the provisions of Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, apply to proceedings before an Accountability Court under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
- Does the production of original recovery memos at the stage of the Investigating Officer's evidence cause legal prejudice to the accused when cross-examination is yet to be conducted?
- Is a constitutional petition challenging an interlocutory order of a trial court after a lapse of nearly six months barred by laches?
- Qazi Badar-ur-Rehman and others vs Mst. Adiyati Bai and others2021 SHC 1164 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-03Read full judgment →
- Qasim vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1222 · Sindh High Court · 2013-01-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal bail application under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, arising from Sessions Case No.372/2011 relating to Crime No.79/2011 registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Mirpur Mathelo, District Ghotki. The core legal question concerns whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the accused was not named in the initial FIR, was implicated thirteen days later via statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by interested witnesses, no identification parade was held, and no recovery was effected from the accused. The Sindh High Court held that the unexplained delay in nominating the accused, the lack of an identification parade, the absence of any recovery, and the circumstances surrounding the eyewitnesses' delayed statements brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The Court laid down the principle that unexplained and belated naming of an accused who was initially unknown, coupled with the absence of an identification parade and lack of incriminating recoveries, creates reasonable grounds for further inquiry, entitling the accused to post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused not named in the FIR and implicated after a considerable delay through statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. without an identification parade is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of an identification parade when the accused was initially unknown to the eyewitnesses create a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused facing similar allegations have been granted bail?
- Qasim Qayyum vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and 2 others2021 YLR 1159 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-25Read full judgment →
- Qasim Ali, etc vs Manzooran Bibi, etc2021 LHC 7122, 2022 MLD 1013 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-25Read full judgment →
- Qasim Ali and 2 others vs Province Of Punjab through Secretary, Irrigation2021 YLR 1261 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns multiple writ petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings initiated by the provincial government for the construction of the Dadochha Dam. The core legal questions were whether the acquiring agency possessed unlimited time to proceed after an initial notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; whether an addendum notification issued over nine years later was valid; and whether the invocation of urgency under Section 17(4) of the Act was lawful. The Court held that while the acquiring agency is not strictly bound by a specific statutory deadline for subsequent steps, it is legally obligated to conclude acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time. The Court determined that a delay of over nine years rendered the initial notification redundant and unproceedable. Furthermore, the Court found the issuance of an addendum after such a significant lapse to be mala fide, as it sought to deprive landowners of current market-value compensation. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned notifications, ruling that urgency provisions cannot sustain proceedings based on redundant and illegal foundational notifications, while granting the state liberty to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the acquiring agency have an unlimited timeframe to conclude acquisition proceedings after issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Can an addendum to a land acquisition notification be issued after a delay of over nine years?
- Does the invocation of urgency under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 remain valid if the underlying acquisition notifications are found to be illegal or redundant?
- Is the state required to complete land acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time to avoid prejudice to landowners?
- Qari Muhammad Atta Ullah vs DPO and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1892, 2021 LHC 4442, 2022 PLD Lahore 224 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the recovery of the petitioner’s son from alleged illegal police custody. The core legal question concerned the legality of detention where the police failed to record the arrest in the station’s daily diary (Roznamcha). Upon the report of a court-appointed bailiff confirming the detenu's presence in the lock-up without corresponding official entries, the Court declared the custody illegal. The Court held that the failure to maintain mandatory police records constitutes gross misconduct and renders the detention unlawful. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into one under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, granting the detenu protective bail. The Court laid down strict principles: arrests must be immediately recorded in both computerized and manual registers; manual entries must be made in ballpoint; case files must remain at the police station; and Magistrates must refuse remand requests lacking specific arrest details. Furthermore, the Court directed the registration of an FIR against the delinquent police officials under Section 155(c) of the Police Order 2002.
Questions settled- Does the failure of police to record an arrest in the daily diary (Roznamcha) render the detention illegal?
- Can a court convert a habeas corpus petition into a petition for protective bail?
- Are police officials required to maintain manual Roznamcha entries in ballpoint rather than pencil?
- Should a Magistrate refuse a remand request if the application fails to state the date and time of arrest?
- Qari Muhammad Arif vs The State through Advocate General of Azad2021 YLR 234 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-07-09Read full judgment →
- Qari Muhammad Arif vs Secretary Home Department and others2021 PLJ Lahore 886, 2021 PLD Lahore 499 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a government school teacher, challenged a notification issued by the Secretary Home Department, Punjab, retaining his name on the Fourth Schedule list under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for a second three-year term. The core legal questions involved whether the Provincial Home Secretary had the jurisdiction to issue proscription orders, whether a proscription period can be extended beyond three years, and whether the order met the requisite legal standard of 'reasonable grounds to believe'. The Lahore High Court held that the Federal Government's powers under section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were validly delegated to the Provincial Home Secretary, and that the statute does not impose an absolute bar preventing the government from extending proscription beyond three years if justified by sufficient material. However, the court ruled that proscription is a quasi-judicial function requiring objective 'reasonable grounds to believe' rather than mere suspicion or vague agency reports. Finding the impugned order vague and lacking tangible supporting evidence, the court quashed it as being without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether the Provincial Home Secretary is competent to issue a proscription order under section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Does the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 prohibit the extension of a person's proscription under the Fourth Schedule beyond an initial period of three years?
- Is the function of a competent authority in passing an order of proscription under section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 administrative or quasi-judicial in nature?
- What evidentiary standard does the phrase 'reasonable grounds to believe' under section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 require for a valid proscription order?
- Qari Faiz Rasool vs Chief Administrator Auqaf, etc2021 CLC 873, 2021 LHC 112 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
- Qamar-uz-Zaman & another vs Adj & others2021 [M] C L R 743 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-06Read full judgment →
- Qamar Zaman vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary Home Department2021 MLD 304 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
- Qamar Zaman vs Ghulam Abbas2021 PLJ Lahore 298 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-02Read full judgment →
- Qamar Sultan vs The State2021 YLR 1870 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for committing qatl-i-amd under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death, alongside a murder reference. The core legal questions revolved around the reliability of chance witnesses, the corroborative value of medical evidence, recovery, and motive, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitnesses were unverified chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful, that delays in recording the FIR implied consultation and fabrication, that the recovery of the weapon was uncorroborated by forensic evidence, and that the motive remained unproven. The court laid down that a conviction cannot be sustained on uncorroborated medical evidence or abscondence alone when the primary ocular account is disbelieved, and that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of chance witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration of their presence at the scene of the occurrence?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of medical evidence and abscondence when the ocular account has been disbelieved?
- Does a delay in reporting the matter to the police and registering the FIR create an inference of consultation and fabrication?
- Is a weapon recovery report from the Forensic Science Agency that does not match the crime empties considered corroborative of the prosecution's case?
- Qamar Altaf vs The Commissioner Multan etc2021 LHC 4102, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 109 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the possession of a government residential quarter following the compulsory retirement of the original allottee. The core legal questions were whether a compulsorily retired government servant retains a vested right to occupy government accommodation pending a service appeal, and whether the deliberate concealment of prior litigation, constituting forum shopping, disentitles a party to equitable relief. The Court held that a government servant has no vested right to retain government housing after compulsory retirement, and the mere pendency of a service appeal does not create such an entitlement. Furthermore, the Court determined that the respondent’s act of concealing the filing of an earlier appeal to secure a favorable forum constituted forum shopping and 'unclean hands.' Consequently, the Court affirmed that such conduct violates the principle of 'equality of arms' under Article 10A of the Constitution, rendering the party ineligible for equitable remedies like injunctions. The principle established is that courts will not grant equitable relief to litigants who engage in the suppression of material facts or forum shopping, as such conduct undermines the administration of justice.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of a service appeal against compulsory retirement create a vested right for a government servant to retain government accommodation?
- Does the concealment of prior litigation or forum shopping disentitle a party to equitable relief such as an injunction?
- Is the principle of 'equality of arms' under Article 10A of the Constitution violated by the suppression of facts regarding earlier proceedings?
- Can a court grant an injunction to a party who has not approached the court with clean hands?
- Qalandar Shah vs The State and another2021 YLR 2349 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the possession of 1160 grams of Charas and sentencing him to four years and six months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant's counsel did not press the appeal on merits but sought a reduction in sentence relying on the principle regarding representative sampling. The core legal question was whether a consolidated sample parcel drawn from multiple pieces of contraband without individual sampling is sufficient to sustain a conviction for the higher quantity under Section 9(c). The Lahore High Court held that where the contraband consisted of multiple pieces but only a consolidated sample was sent for analysis, the prosecution could not prove the recovery of the bulk quantity beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court converted the conviction from Section 9(c) to Section 9(a) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, reducing the sentence to one year rigorous imprisonment, and laid down that failure to prepare separate representative sample parcels for distinct pieces of narcotics precludes conviction for the total bulk weight.
Questions settled- Whether a consolidated sample parcel taken from multiple pieces of recovered contraband can be considered a representative sample of the whole bulk?
- Does failure to draw separate samples from each piece of recovered narcotic material vitiate the conviction for the higher quantity under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Can an appellate court convert a conviction from Section 9(c) to Section 9(a) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 based on defective sampling?
- Qalandar Shah vs State and anotherP12 2021 Cr.C. 957 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to four years and six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question was whether a consolidated sample drawn from multiple pieces of recovered narcotics constitutes a valid representative sample of the entire bulk. The Lahore High Court held that where a contraband consists of multiple pieces and a single consolidated sample is sent for chemical analysis without establishing the exact weight of each piece, the sample cannot be deemed representative of the whole bulk. Consequently, the conviction was modified from Section 9(c) to Section 9(a) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, reducing the sentence to the period already served, based on the principle established in Ameer Zeb v. The State.
Questions settled- Does a consolidated sample parcel prepared from multiple pieces of recovered narcotics constitute a valid representative sample of the entire bulk?
- Can a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be converted to Section 9(a) when the prosecution fails to prove the safe custody and representative nature of the entire bulk?
- Whether the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is extendable upon the modification of a criminal sentence?
- Qaiser Khan vs The State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, PeshawarPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 196, 2021 SCMR 363, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 816 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment following the alleged recovery of 15 kilograms of charas. The Supreme Court examined the chain of custody regarding the seized contraband. The Court observed that while the narcotics were allegedly transported from the crime scene to the police station by a specific constable, said official was neither examined as a witness nor was his statement recorded. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer could not identify who delivered the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The record was silent regarding the safe custody of the narcotics during the two-day interval between the seizure and their receipt at the laboratory. Applying established jurisprudence, the Court held that failure to prove the safe custody and transmission of narcotics through reliable evidence is fatal to the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
- Qaisar Mehmood and another vs The State2021 P SC (Crl.) 461, 2021 SCMR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from convictions under Section 302(b) and Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Section 10(4) of the Offense of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The appellants were convicted and sentenced to death for the abduction, sexual assault, and murder of a 3.5-year-old child. The core legal questions pertained to the sufficiency and reliability of a chain of circumstantial evidence, including 'last seen' evidence, extrajudicial confession, and recoveries of bloodstained items, as well as the validity of defense arguments alleging false substitution by police. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that circumstantial evidence, when forming an unbroken chain without missing links, provides sufficient proof of guilt. The Court clarified that evidence cannot be categorized as inherently weak or strong based on rigid empirical parameters; rather, Courts must assess the integrity and adequacy of available evidence under principles of safe administration of criminal justice. Finding one appellant to have been a minor at the time of the offense, the Court modified his death sentence to life imprisonment, while dismissing the appeal of the co-convict.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence including 'last seen' testimony?
- Are there fixed empirical parameters that categorize 'last seen' evidence or extrajudicial confessions as inherently weak pieces of evidence?
- Whether the death penalty can be maintained against a convict who was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime?
- Qaisar Khan vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2021 PLC (C.S.) 738, 2021 SCMR 67, 2022 PSC 198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from an impugned order dated 12.01.2010 passed by the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Sub-Inspector Legal. The core legal question involves the validity of appointment based on domicile and the interpretation of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations, 2003, specifically regarding multiple or changed domiciles. The Supreme Court held that under Regulation 20(c) of the said Regulations, a domicile once produced shall be final, and producing a domicile of a settled area implies the renouncement of a tribal agency domicile, provided there is no malpractice or mis-declaration. The court concluded that respondent No. 5 validly obtained the domicile of Mardan and secured the first position on merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs, establishing that a newly produced domicile is final and operates as a renunciation of a previous tribal domicile without requiring explicit counter-renouncement provisions.
Questions settled- Does the production of a new domicile for a settled area finalise the candidate's residency status under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations, 2003?
- Whether obtaining a domicile in a settled area implies the renunciation of a previous tribal agency domicile in the absence of express statutory prohibition?
- Can an appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector Legal be challenged solely on the ground that the candidate previously held a tribal agency domicile?
- Qadir Rasheed vs UBL and others2021 PLC 260 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2020-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court, later transferred to the National Industrial Relations Commission following a change in jurisdiction under the Industrial Relations Act, seeking regularization and reinstatement with back benefits after his verbal termination from United Bank Limited. The petitioner claimed he had been engaged since 1979 as an Assistant and Godown Keeper, attaining the status of a permanent workman. The respondent bank contested the employment relationship, arguing the petitioner was an employee of a third-party borrower (M/s Afridi Trading) rather than the bank. The core legal question was whether an employment relationship existed between the petitioner and the respondent bank such that he attained the status of a permanent workman. The court held that the petitioner was indeed performing duties continuously for the bank as a casual laborer/godown keeper on behalf of the bank since 1982 and had attained the status of a permanent workman. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was reinstated into service with full back benefits, establishing the principle that godown keepers working on pledged assets under bank supervision are employees of the bank rather than the borrowing third party.
Questions settled- Whether a godown keeper guarding pledged assets for a bank is an employee of the bank or the borrowing company?
- Can a daily wage or casual worker attain the status of a permanent workman after continuous service?
- Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has jurisdiction over industrial and labor disputes transferred under changed laws?
- Qadir Khan Mandokhail Asc vs Election Commission of Pakistan & Others2021 SHC 1094 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-23Read full judgment →
- Qadir Bukhsh vs Additional District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan and 2 others2021 CLC 1650 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-23Read full judgment →
- Qadir Bakhsh vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1169 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for double murder. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession, and the reliability of recoveries made during the investigation. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances. The court emphasized that a retracted judicial confession, without independent corroboration, cannot sustain a conviction. Furthermore, the court found that the complainant made deliberate and dishonest improvements in his testimony, undermining his credibility. The recovery of the alleged crime weapon from an open, non-exclusive place was deemed unsafe, and the delay in sending forensic samples rendered the evidence inconclusive. Establishing the principle that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits without relying on defence weaknesses, the court ruled that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on a retracted judicial confession without independent corroboration?
- Does a deliberate and dishonest improvement in a witness's testimony destroy the credibility of their entire statement?
- Is the recovery of a weapon from an open place accessible to others sufficient to prove guilt?
- Must the prosecution prove the ownership of recovered items to rely on them as incriminating evidence?
- Punjab Public Service Commission, etc vs Husnain Abbas, etc2021 PLC (C.S.) 979, 2021 P SC 841, 2021 SCMR 1017, 2021 SCP 184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court that set aside a corrigendum and a revised merit list issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC), which had reserved 20% of the advertised Senior Chemist (BS-17) posts for special zones under a provincial notification. The High Court had directed the appointment of the respondent based on the initial merit list on the ground of 'legitimate expectancy'. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed two key questions: whether the reservation of zonal quotas violated Article 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether a candidate acquires a vested right to appointment by merely being placed on an initial merit list. The Supreme Court held that the 40-year constitutional limit under Article 27 was validly extended and that the provincial government had statutory authority to prescribe zonal quotas. It further ruled that no vested right accrues to a candidate merely by appearing on a merit list, and the rules in force at the time of appointment govern the process. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside.
Questions settled- Does a candidate acquire a vested right to a civil service appointment merely by having their name appear on an initial merit list?
- Which rules and conditions govern a public sector recruitment process—those in force at the time of the advertisement or those in force at the time of the actual appointment?
- Does the reservation of posts for specific zones or classes under a valid government notification violate Article 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a High Court strike down an administrative corrigendum on the ground of 'legitimate expectancy' while leaving the underlying statutory notifications intact?
- Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank limited vs Member (Colonies), Board2021 LHC 514 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Punjab Beverage Co. Ltd vs Commissioner (Pra), Faisalabad2021 PTD (Trib.) 641 · Appellate Tribunal Punjab Revenue Authority · 2019-12-17Read full judgment →
- Pune Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (Pmrda) vs Prakash2021 SCInd 148 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-03-10Read full judgment →
- Provincial-Selection Board, Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chairman_Chief Secretary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Hidayat Ullah Khan Gandapur2021 SCMR 1904, 2021 SCP 368, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 486, 2022 PSC 369, 2022 PSC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a Peshawar High Court judgment directing the Provincial Selection Board, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, to grant antedated pro-forma promotion in BS-20 to the respondent. The respondent, a retired Superintending Engineer, had faced disciplinary dismissal after entering into a plea bargain with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, but was reinstated by the Service Tribunal before seeking pro-forma promotion. The primary legal issue was whether a civil servant who admitted guilt and entered into a plea bargain with NAB is legally entitled to claim pro-forma promotion as a matter of right on the basis of parity with another similarly placed employee. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that entering into a plea bargain under Section 25(b) amounts to a deemed conviction and constitutes misconduct under Section 15 of the Ordinance. The Court established that an unlawful benefit previously granted to another employee does not create a vested right or legal foundation for parity, applying the principle that two wrongs do not make a right.
Questions settled- Does entering into a plea bargain under Section 25(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 amount to a deemed conviction resulting in disqualification from holding public office under Section 15?
- Can a civil servant who has admitted guilt through a plea bargain in a corruption reference claim pro-forma promotion as a vested legal right?
- Can a party claim parity or equal treatment under the law based on an earlier unlawful benefit or wrongful order granted to another person?
- Provincial Selection Board, Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through its2021 SCP 368 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which directed the Provincial Selection Board to grant pro-forma promotion in BS-20 to the respondent, a retired Superintending Engineer in the Irrigation Department. The respondent had earlier been arrested by NAB for corruption, entered into a plea bargain, and was released. Though reinstated through a Service Tribunal decision after his dismissal, his request for pro-forma promotion was refused due to the plea bargain. The core legal question was whether a civil servant who has availed the benefit of a plea bargain under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, is entitled to claim pro-forma promotion as a vested right, and whether parity can be claimed based on a previous allegedly wrongful grant of benefit to another employee. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that a plea bargain results in a statutory deemed conviction, disqualifying the person from holding public office or claiming service benefits like pro-forma promotion, and that the principle of equality cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality. The key principle laid down is that a plea bargain under the accountability law carries the consequence of a conviction, rendering the offender ineligible for promotion, and two wrongs do not make a right to establish a claim of discrimination.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant who enters into a plea bargain under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 is deemed to be convicted of corruption?
- Does a civil servant who has availed the benefit of a plea bargain have a vested right to claim pro-forma promotion after retirement?
- Can a civil servant claim parity and equal treatment based on an unlawful benefit previously granted to another employee under the principle of discrimination?
- Provincial Government through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan and 42022 YLR 635 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-09-04Read full judgment →
- Provincial Government through Chief Secretary and 5 others vs Haji Safar2022 YLR 794 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-11-24Read full judgment →
- Province Of The Punjab through Secretary School Education, Government2021 P SC 291, 2020 SCMR 1519, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 1311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions filed by the Province of the Punjab against the Punjab Service Tribunal's order granting respondents regularization of their service from their initial ad hoc appointment as Secondary School Teachers. The core legal question was whether ad hoc employees are entitled to claim seniority from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment rather than from the date of their subsequent regularization. The Supreme Court held that in view of the explicit statutory provisions and established jurisprudence, ad hoc appointments do not confer any right to count ad hoc service towards seniority upon regular appointment, and seniority must be reckoned from the date of regularization. The Court set aside the impugned order of the Service Tribunal, establishing that ad hoc service cannot count towards seniority.
Questions settled- Whether ad hoc service can count towards seniority in grade upon regularization?
- Does an ad hoc appointment confer any right to regular appointment or seniority under the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1974?
- From which date should seniority be reckoned for employees whose services are regularized after initial ad hoc appointment?
- Province Of Sindh through Secretary to Government of Sindh and another2021 YLR 525 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Province of Punjab, etc vs Mian Gohar Mubashar Hameed2021 LHC 4995, 2022 CLC 379 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-20Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab, etc vs Hafiz Muhammad Ahmad2021 SCP 298, 2021 SCMR 1492, 2022 PSC 486 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against an order passed by the High Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no legal error in the impugned order, concluding that it was well-reasoned and did not warrant interference; consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined. However, the Court took the opportunity to address a procedural issue regarding the citation of case law. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had relied upon headnotes of law reports in its judgment. The Court clarified that headnotes are prepared by editors to facilitate readers and are not part of the actual judicial pronouncement. Because headnotes can occasionally be misleading or inconsistent with the text of the judgment, the Court held that they should not be cited as authoritative dicta. The Court laid down the principle that courts, including High Courts and District Courts, must cite the actual text of a judgment when relying on precedents, rather than relying upon or citing the headnotes thereof.
Questions settled- Are headnotes of law reports considered part of a judicial judgment?
- Is it appropriate for courts to cite headnotes as authoritative dicta in their judgments?
- What is the correct practice for courts when referring to precedents in their orders?
- Province Of Punjab through Secretary, Finance Department, Civil2021 SCMR 1195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment decided Civil Appeal No. 1237 of 2020 and Civil Petition No. 912 of 2019 concerning civil servants who retired on 30.11.2001 but voluntarily opted for the 2001 Revised Basic Pay and Pension Package. Under this package, their retirement date was treated as 01.12.2001 on a presumptive basis to grant higher pension benefits. Subsequently, notifications issued in 2009 and 2010 provided a 20% pension increase for those retiring on or before 30.11.2001 and a 15% increase for those retiring after 01.12.2001. The respondents sought a 20% increase, claiming physical retirement on 30.11.2001. The Supreme Court held that civil servants who chose the 2001 package in its entirety cannot later claim a 20% pension increase by reverting to their actual retirement date. Allowing such double benefits would create an untenable anomaly. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the principle of locus poenitentiae does not apply to perpetuate illegal orders or incorrect interpretations. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowed the appeal, and dismissed the civil petition.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant who voluntarily opted for a revised pension scheme with a presumptive retirement date claim additional benefits meant for retirees under an earlier scheme?
- Whether the doctrine of locus poenitentiae creates a perpetual right based on an illegal order or erroneous interpretation by executive authorities?
- Can an authority recover excess payments made to a pensioner who received them in the bona fide belief of entitlement?
- Province of Punjab through Secretary Primary & Secondary Healthcare, Punjab, Lahore, etc vs M_s Bloom Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Limited2021 P SC 1037, 2021 SCMR 590, 2021 SCP 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions challenging the interpretation of section 22 sub-sections (4) and (5) of the Drugs Act, 1976. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Provincial Quality Control Board or other competent authorities enjoy the discretion under section 22(5) of the Act to either allow or reject a request by an accused person or complainant for the re-testing of a drug sample, or whether such re-testing is merely a mechanical requirement upon challenge. The Court held that once a Government Analyst's report is challenged within the stipulated ten days under section 22(4), the Board possesses an independent discretion—alongside a suo motu power—to allow or disallow a request for re-testing from the Federal Drug Laboratory or another specified laboratory. The Court emphasized that this request must be evaluated on the basis of grounds raised in the initial challenge and concluded by passing a speaking order. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the contrary views and judgments of the High Court, converted the petitions into appeals, and allowed them accordingly.
Questions settled- Does the Provincial Quality Control Board enjoy the discretion under section 22(5) of the Drugs Act, 1976 to either allow or reject a request for the re-testing of a drug sample?
- Is the request for re-testing of a drug from the Federal Drug Laboratory a mere mechanical requirement once the Government Analyst's report is challenged?
- Must a request for re-testing under section 22(5) of the Drugs Act, 1976 be preceded by a complaint against the report under section 22(4)?
- Province of Punjab through Secretary Livestock & Dairy Development2021 PLJ SC 204, 2021 P SC 740, 2021 SCMR 767, 2021 SCP 126 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the question of whether the regularization of contract employees should take effect from the date of their initial contractual appointment or from the date of their formal regularization under the Government's Regularization Policy. The respondents, Veterinary Officers appointed on contract between 2004 and 2009, sought retrospective regularization from their initial joining dates. The Punjab Service Tribunal had allowed their claim, which the Provincial Government challenged. The Supreme Court held that contractual and regular appointments constitute two distinct legal regimes with different administrative and financial rationales. Contractual employees are governed by the terms of their contracts and do not possess a vested right to regularization. Regularization is considered a fresh induction into the civil service and, unless expressly stated otherwise by law or policy, operates prospectively. The Court emphasized that retrospective application would negate the distinction between contract and regular service. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order, ruling that regularization takes effect only from the date specified in the regularization order.
- Province Of Punjab through Secretary Housing and Physical Planning2022 SCMR 830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision petition and affirming the appellate court's decree in favor of the Respondents. The core legal questions involve whether the disputed land was duly notified for acquisition under section 4 of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Ordinance, 1973, and whether an award could legally transfer such land to the Education Department for a purpose different from the notified scheme. The Supreme Court held that the disputed land was never included in the initial preliminary notification, and subsequent official correspondence confirmed its exclusion and withdrawal from acquisition, making its inclusion in the award illegal. Furthermore, acquiring agencies cannot use acquired land for a purpose other than that specified in the notification, nor can they add unnotified land to an award without proper statutory procedures. The Court affirmed the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Can land not included in the preliminary notification under section 4 of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Ordinance, 1973 be lawfully added to an award?
- Whether an acquiring agency can use acquired land for a purpose different from the one specified in the acquisition notification?
- Does the Deputy Commissioner possess the authority to add a Khasra number to a notification or award without following mandatory statutory procedures?
- Can a court presume the withdrawal of land from acquisition under Article 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 when a subsequent notification withdrawing the earlier notification remains unchallenged?
- Province of Punjab through Secretary Finance & another vs The Food2021 P SC 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the authority of a Law Officer to make concessional statements on behalf of the Government regarding the recovery of revenue or debts. The core legal question addressed is whether a lawyer representing the Government is empowered to concede an issue or case without explicit authorization from the competent authority. The Supreme Court held that a Law Officer lacks the authority to make concessional statements detrimental to the vested interests of the Government regarding revenue or debt recovery. The Court emphasized that such concessions, particularly those involving questions of law, are not sustainable if made without written instructions from the competent authority. While referencing established recommendations requiring written instructions and the presence of a Grade-17 officer for such concessions, the Court noted these rules were issued in 2003 and thus could not be applied retroactively to the 1997 proceedings in the instant case. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Is a Law Officer empowered to make a concessional statement on behalf of the Government regarding the recovery of revenue or debts without authorization?
- Can a concession made by a Law Officer regarding a question of law be sustained if it is detrimental to the vested interest of the Government?
- Are the recommendations regarding the necessity of written instructions for Law Officers to make concessions applicable retroactively?
- Province of Punjab through Secretary Communication and Works Department, Lahore through Chief Engineer (North_Central) Punjab Highway Department, Lahore vs Yasir Majeed Sheikh etc2021 P SC 901, 2021 SCMR 624, 2021 SCP 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution challenged the Lahore High Court's judgments, which had directed the Punjab Highway Department to provide direct access to a petrol pump from the main Lahore-Kasur Road. The High Court had found a violation of Article 18 of the Constitution due to alleged discrimination. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and set aside the High Court's judgments. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because the denial of direct access, when an alternate service road access was available 360 feet away, did not infringe the fundamental right to freedom of trade or business under Article 18. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 should not be exercised in cases involving disputed questions of fact requiring evidence or when an adequate alternate remedy is available, as bypassing statutory remedies is to be discouraged.
Questions settled- Can a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution be maintained when disputed questions of fact are involved?
- Does the denial of direct access to a petrol pump from a main road, when an alternate access via a service road is available, infringe the fundamental right to freedom of trade or business under Article 18 of the Constitution?
- Is the right of a roadside owner to have access to a highway an easementary right or a fundamental right?
- Should constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution be exercised when an adequate alternate remedy is available?
- Province of Punjab through its Special Secretary, Specialized Healthcare &2021 SCP 290, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 1531, 2021 PSC 1625, 2021 SCMR 1419 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment that reduced a major penalty of compulsory retirement to a minor penalty of forfeiture of service for a hospital technician found guilty of misconduct, illegal blood sales, and unauthorized absence. The core legal question concerns the scope of the Tribunal's authority to modify departmental penalties and the impact of criminal acquittal on departmental proceedings. The Supreme Court held that departmental proceedings and criminal prosecutions are independent; thus, acquittal in criminal court does not automatically invalidate departmental findings. The Court emphasized that while the Service Tribunal possesses the power to modify penalties under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, this discretion must be exercised judiciously, with cogent, legally sustainable reasons, and not in an arbitrary or whimsical manner. The Tribunal’s failure to provide valid reasons for reducing the penalty rendered its judgment a non-speaking order. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's decision, and restored the original penalty of compulsory retirement, reiterating that judicial verdicts must be grounded in law rather than abstract philosophy.
Questions settled- Does an acquittal in criminal proceedings automatically invalidate departmental disciplinary proceedings?
- What are the legal requirements for a Service Tribunal to exercise its discretion to modify a penalty imposed by a departmental authority?
- Can a Service Tribunal reduce a departmental penalty without assigning cogent and legally sustainable reasons?
- Province Of Punjab Through Do(R) Sheikhupura and others vs Javed Akbar2022 SCMR 759, 2022 PSC 1117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal arising from a High Court judgment regarding a dispute over land access and construction rights. The respondents, owners of land near the Lahore-Sheikhupura Road, sought a declaration and injunction against the Provincial Government, which had acquired adjacent land for road dualization and a mechanical workshop. The respondents alleged that the government's construction of pillars and a wall would block their access and visibility, rendering their land valueless. The High Court had directed the government to provide a 20-foot passage to the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by creating new rights where none existed. The Court found that the respondents failed to prove the existence of any established passage or easement right, and the government was entitled to use its acquired land for its intended purpose. The Court established that civil courts cannot create fresh rights or easements in favor of a party where none are claimed or legally established, and that owners of land abutting a road cannot be restricted from utilizing their property for its acquired purpose based on speculative commercial loss.
Questions settled- Can a court in its revisional jurisdiction create new rights or easements that were not claimed or established in the original pleadings?
- Does the mere potential for future commercial development on a property grant the owner a right to demand access through adjacent government-owned land?
- Is a government entity restricted from using acquired land for its intended purpose if such use allegedly reduces the commercial value of neighboring private land?
- Province Of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and others vs Prof. Dr.2022 SCMR 897, 2022 PSC 1230, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 947 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a Lahore High Court judgment which directed that the Respondents, who were contract employees (Professors/Associate Professors), be regularized retrospectively from the date of their reinstatement rather than with immediate effect. The core legal questions involved whether contract employees have a vested right to retrospective regularization and whether the High Court could interfere with the executive's prerogative in regularization matters under Article 199. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that regularization is a prospective act that requires statutory or policy backing and cannot be claimed retrospectively for periods when employees were not in service or were on contract. The Court further clarified that 'reinstatement' in a contractual context does not automatically imply continuity of service for regularization purposes. It was also noted that once regularized, the Respondents became civil servants, and the High Court's jurisdiction was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution.
- Province of Punjab thr. Secretary Excise & Taxation Department, Lahore, etc vs Murree Brewery Company Ltd (MBCL) Sindh Wine Merchants Welfare Association2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 390, 2021 P C T L R 257, 2021 P C T L R 360, · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the dismissal of Intra-Court Appeals (ICAs) by the Lahore High Court on a technical ground. The High Court had held that the ICAs, filed in the name of the 'Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, through Secretary Excise & Taxation' instead of the 'Province of Punjab', violated Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Article 174 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is mandatory or directory, and whether misdescribing the government as a party is fatal to the proceedings. The Court held that while Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is generally mandatory to ensure proper representation of the State, a mere misdescription or misnomer of the government (where the government itself is the filing party) is a curable technical defect rather than a fatal error. The Court ruled that such defects should be corrected under Section 153 and Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, rather than resulting in a technical knockout. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the matter for a decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Is Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a mandatory or directory provision?
- Does the misdescription of a government entity as a party in a suit or appeal render the entire proceeding invalid and unmaintainable?
- Can a court exercise its powers under Section 153 and Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to correct a misnomer or misdescription of a government party?
- Province of Punjab etc vs Muhammad Amir Hayat etc2021 PLC (C.S.) 245, 2020 LHC 2601 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves multiple Intra Court Appeals filed by the Province of Punjab against a single judge's order directing the regularization of various contractual Elementary Secondary Educators (Science-Math). The respondents, appointed on contract basis despite lacking the prescribed academic qualification of B.Sc (holding B.Com instead), sought regularization after their contracts expired. The core legal questions were whether contractual employees possess a vested right to regularization or contract extension, and whether the High Court, under its constitutional jurisdiction, can compel such regularization. The Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable. It ruled that contractual employees have no vested right to extension or regularization, particularly after their contracts have expired by afflux of time. The Court emphasized that it cannot force an employer to reinstate or extend the contract of such employees. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it should not interfere in executive policy matters, such as recruitment criteria, unless they are arbitrary or discriminatory. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the single judge's order was set aside, reaffirming that contractual terms are not enforceable through constitutional petitions.
Questions settled- Does a contractual employee have a vested right to claim regularization or extension of their employment contract?
- Can the High Court enforce the terms and conditions of a service contract through its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Should the High Court interfere with the executive's policy decisions regarding recruitment criteria and academic qualifications?
- Does the expiry of a contract by afflux of time entitle an employee to remain in service?
- Province of Punjab & another vs Sajida Zaheer & others2021 LHC 5050, 2022 PLC 206 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Punjab Labour Court and a subsequent judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the limitation period for filing an appeal against a Labour Court's decision commences from the date of the decision or from the date of its communication to the parties, specifically in light of the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 46 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The Court held that the Labour Court is legally obligated to forward copies of its decisions to the Government for publication, and that the limitation period for an appeal is linked to the communication of the final decision. By failing to ensure proper communication, the lower fora rendered the statutory provision redundant. Consequently, the Court set aside the Appellate Tribunal's judgment and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on merits. The key principle laid down is that where a statute prescribes a specific manner for an act, it must be performed strictly in that manner, and limitation periods cannot be calculated in a way that renders statutory provisions nugatory.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for filing an appeal against a Labour Court decision commence from the date of the decision or the date of its communication?
- Is the requirement under Section 46 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, for the Labour Court to forward copies of its decision to the Government mandatory?
- Can a court interpret a statutory provision in a manner that renders it redundant or nugatory?
- Does the failure of a Labour Court to follow mandatory procedural requirements regarding the communication of its decision vitiate the limitation period for an appeal?
- Province Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary to Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Irrigation Department, Peshawar and 2 others vs Technicon Engineers And Epc Contractor Group through authorized agent and 3 others2021 CLC 818 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-08Read full judgment →
- Professor Dr. Lubna Ansari Baig vs Province of Sindh & others2021 SHC 1098 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-14Read full judgment →
- Professor Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad, Vice Chancellor Gomal University, Di K_6bd7b76a2021 PHC 302, 2022 PLD Peshawar 68 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-22Read full judgment →
- Professor Dr. Hakim Ali Abro vs Faqeer Bakhat Hussain & Others2021 SHC 1268 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal acquittal appeal filed by the appellant against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, which acquitted the private respondents of an offence under Section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a direct complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether an appeal against an acquittal in a private complaint case is maintainable without first obtaining special leave to appeal from the High Court. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent because the appellant failed to obtain the mandatory special leave to appeal as prescribed by law. The Court reasoned that under the relevant statutory framework, an acquittal order resulting from a private complaint can only be challenged after obtaining special leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the requirement for special leave to appeal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a mandatory procedural prerequisite for challenging an acquittal in a private complaint case, and failure to obtain such leave renders the appeal incompetent.
Questions settled- Is an appeal against an acquittal in a private complaint case maintainable without obtaining special leave to appeal?
- Can a trial court record an acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording evidence?
- Does the failure to obtain special leave to appeal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render a criminal acquittal appeal incompetent?
- Professor (Retd) Syed Anwer Ali and another vs Province of Sindh and 032021 SHC 28 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
- Prof. Zahid Baig Mirza vs Capital Development Authority through Chairman2023 [M] CLR 8, 2022 PLD Islamabad 398 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-11Read full judgment →
- Prof. Dr. Muhammad Zahid vs The Chancellor, Federal Urdu University Of Arts, Science And Technology (Fuuast), Islamabad and 8 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 1144 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitution Petition was filed to challenge the appointment of certain members to the Search Committee and the rejection of the petitioner's application for the post of Vice-Chancellor of the Federal Urdu University of Arts, Sciences and Technology (FUUAST). The core legal questions involved the legality of the Search Committee's composition, allegations of bias against its members, and whether the Search Committee could lawfully outsource its shortlisting and scoring functions to independent enumerators. The Sindh High Court held that the nomination of the impugned members was in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and that allegations of bias were unsubstantiated; however, the Court ruled that the Search Committee gravely erred by outsourcing its statutory duty of shortlisting and scoring candidates to independent enumerators. The Court set aside the scoring exercise conducted by the enumerators and directed the Search Committee to conduct the selection process de novo by itself in a fair and transparent manner in accordance with Section 12 of the Federal Urdu University of Arts, Sciences and Technology, Islamabad Ordinance, 2002.
Questions settled- Can a Search Committee constituted for the appointment of a University Vice-Chancellor outsource its statutory task of shortlisting and scoring candidates to independent enumerators?
- Whether the nomination of members to a University Search Committee can be challenged on the ground of prior show-cause notices when no formal departmental action has been taken against them?
- Does Section 12 of the Federal Urdu University of Arts, Sciences and Technology, Islamabad Ordinance, 2002 empower the Search Committee to delegate its core responsibilities of scrutinizing candidate credentials?
- Prof. Dr. Muhammad Zahid vs The Chancellor, Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology & others2021 SHC 476 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-28Read full judgment →
- Prof. Dr. Muhammad Zahid vs Chancellor, Federal Urdu University Of Arts, Science And Technology and others2021 PLJ Karachi 144 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-28Read full judgment →
- Prof. Dr. Lubna Ansari Baig vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary2021 PLC (C.S.) 1304 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal arose from an interlocutory order passed by a learned Single Judge in a civil suit. The appellant, a candidate for the post of Vice Chancellor of Jinnah Sindh Medical University, had initially obtained an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from finalizing the selection list. Despite this operating injunction, the provincial government issued a notification appointing another candidate as Vice Chancellor. The appellant filed fresh applications to suspend the notification. The Single Judge issued notices on these applications but declined to suspend the notification, observing that suspension would adversely affect the university's functioning, while simultaneously extending the earlier injunction. The High Court observed that the Single Judge's adverse remarks at the notice stage were unnecessary, contradictory to the operating injunction, and showed premature conclusiveness. Holding that the subsequent appointment notification was prima facie contemptuous of the operating injunction, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the adverse observations, and suspended the appointment notification pending final disposal of the applications by the Single Judge.
Questions settled- Can a court make conclusive adverse observations on the merits of a notification at the stage of issuing notices on an injunction application?
- Whether an administrative authority can issue an appointment notification while an active court injunction restraining the finalization of such appointment is in field?
- Is a follow-up ad-interim order necessary to carry out the real object of an earlier operating injunction when subsequent actions are taken in violation of it?
- Prof. Dr. Asad Aslam Khan vs Government of Punjab & others2021 PLC (C.S.) 304, 2020 LHC 2407 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the interpretation of the terms and conditions for the appointment of Pro-Vice Chancellors under the King Edward Medical University, Lahore Act, 2005 and the University of Agriculture Faisalabad Act, 1973. The core legal question was whether a Professor with less than three years of service remaining is eligible for appointment as Pro-Vice Chancellor and whether the three-year tenure is absolute or subject to superannuation. The Court held that the relevant statutes do not impose a condition requiring a minimum of three years of remaining service for eligibility. Consequently, a Professor with less than three years of service may be appointed. However, the Court clarified that the Pro-Vice Chancellor post, while a tenure post, is subject to the statutory age of superannuation (60 years). Thus, the appointment is for three years or until superannuation, whichever occurs first. The Court rejected the contrary interpretation in Shoaib's case, set aside the notification in the first petition, and dismissed the second petition, emphasizing that courts should not read additional restrictions into clear statutory language.
Questions settled- Is a Professor with less than three years of remaining service eligible to be appointed as a Pro-Vice Chancellor under the King Edward Medical University, Lahore Act, 2005?
- Does the three-year tenure of a Pro-Vice Chancellor override the statutory age of superannuation?
- Can a court read additional eligibility requirements into a statute that are not explicitly provided by the legislature?
- Privatization Commission through Secretary and others vs Aftab Hussain2022 PLD Supreme Court 267, 2022 PSC 1266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil appeals and petitions before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the constitutional validity of the Benazir Employees Stock Option Scheme (BESOS), approved by the Federal Cabinet on 5 August 2009. The Scheme transferred twelve percent of Government of Pakistan shareholding in State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) free of cost to employees through trusts, leading employees to seek enforcement and financial payouts under issued unit certificates. The core question was whether the Federal Cabinet possessed executive authority to approve the Scheme without policy formulation and regulation by the Council of Common Interests (CCI) under Article 154 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the executive authority under Article 97 is subject to constitutional limitations. Since the Scheme pertained to institutions, establishments, and corporations under Entry No. 3 of Part II of the Federal Legislative List, the constitutional mandate required CCI policy formulation. Consequently, the Federal Cabinet was incompetent to approve the Scheme, rendering BESOS unconstitutional and void, with no enforceable rights or benefits accruing to employees.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Cabinet is competent to approve an extensive policy scheme concerning State Owned Enterprises without the policy formulation and regulatory approval of the Council of Common Interests under Article 154 of the Constitution?
- Whether the executive authority of the Federation under Article 97 of the Constitution is absolute or curtailed by matters entrusted to the Council of Common Interests in Part II of the Federal Legislative List?
- Whether employees can legally claim or enforce accrued financial rights and benefits under a government scheme that has been declared unconstitutional and ultra vires?
- Priti Saraf & Anr vs State of Nct of Delhi & Anr2021 SCInd 146 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court order quashing criminal proceedings initiated against the 2nd respondent for offences under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The High Court had exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 to quash the FIR, characterizing the dispute as a purely civil matter arising from a breach of contract and noting the pendency of arbitral proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by failing to examine the charge-sheet and material on record, which prima facie disclosed criminal offences. The Court reaffirmed that the existence of a commercial dispute or pending arbitration does not preclude criminal prosecution if the complaint discloses the ingredients of a criminal offence. The Court emphasized that inherent powers should be exercised with great circumspection and that criminal trials should not be short-circuited at the threshold unless the allegations are patently absurd or inherently improbable. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the criminal proceedings.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings be quashed solely because the dispute arises from a commercial transaction?
- Does the pendency of arbitral proceedings preclude the continuation of criminal proceedings for the same transaction?
- Is the High Court required to consider the charge-sheet when exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973?
- Under what circumstances can a High Court quash criminal proceedings at the threshold?
- Principal Public School Sangota vs Sarbiland and others2021 SCP 414, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 226, 2022 PSC 728 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil suit filed in 2002 regarding the ownership of land in Swat, which had been in the possession of the Principal Public School Sangota since 1964. The plaintiffs alleged the land was village common land, despite revenue records showing it as Provincial Government property. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The High Court subsequently restored the trial court's decree. The core legal question was whether the suit was barred by limitation, given it was filed thirty-eight years after the School took possession. The Supreme Court held that the suit was hopelessly time-barred. While acknowledging that a new adverse entry in revenue records can create a fresh cause of action, the Court clarified this principle does not apply where possession was assumed decades prior. The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to justify the delay. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the School's appeal, set aside the lower courts' judgments, and dismissed the suit, affirming that possession and long-standing records cannot be challenged after such an extensive period.
Questions settled- Does a fresh entry in the revenue record (Jamabandi) always create a new cause of action for a suit regarding land ownership?
- Is a suit for possession of land maintainable when filed thirty-eight years after the defendant assumed possession?
- Can a party claim a fresh cause of action based on a revenue entry when the party was already dispossessed decades prior?
- Prince Muhammad Fahad Thaheem and others vs Federation Of Pakistan2021 YLR 1150 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-29Read full judgment →
- President, Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited, Islamabad and others vs Agha2022 SCMR 710, 2022 PLJ SC 100, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 435, 2022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited against an employee whose appointment and promotion were challenged following discrepancies found in his MBA degree by the Higher Education Commission (HEC). The respondent had faced disciplinary proceedings and initiated multiple writ petitions in the High Court. The core legal question concerned the validity of a High Court direction mandating the bank to associate the former President of the bank, who had originally appointed the respondent, in the departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's direction to compel the association of the appointing authority in an internal departmental inquiry lacked legal support, violated norms of independence and transparency, and was susceptible to exerting improper influence on the inquiry committee. Invoking its powers under Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to do complete justice, the Supreme Court set aside the unsustainable direction of the High Court, directed the bank to conclude the pending departmental inquiry within fifteen days without granting further dilatory opportunities, and allowed the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court can legally direct a financial institution to associate the former appointing authority of an employee in a departmental inquiry?
- Can the Supreme Court set aside an unsustainable order of a lower forum to do complete justice under Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 despite technicalities?
- Does the presence of an appointing authority in a domestic inquiry compromise the transparency and independence of the proceedings?
- Preetam vs Madhu Das Godwal and another2021 MLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
- Pramod Kumar Singh And Ors vs State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors2021 SCInd 158 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-03-16Read full judgment →
- Pooran Chand vs Chancellor & Ors2021 SCInd 42 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-29Read full judgment →
- PKP Exploration Limited and others vs Federal Board Of Revenue through Chairman and others2021 PTD 1644 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-18Read full judgment →