Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Naeem Ahmed Gopang vs The State and others2021 SHC 1292 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-16
  criminal transfer applicationtransfer of casethreats to witnessesgrounds for transferjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal transfer application was filed by the applicant seeking the transfer of his case from the trial court at Qamber to a court of competent jurisdiction in Karachi, citing alleged threats to the lives of the applicant and his witnesses by the private respondents. The core legal question was whether sufficient grounds existed to justify the transfer of the criminal case. The Court examined the record and found that the applicant failed to provide any evidence, such as specific details regarding when, where, or how the alleged threats occurred, nor did any witnesses corroborate the claims of intimidation. The Court held that a criminal case cannot be transferred based on unsubstantiated or self-invented grounds. Consequently, the application was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that transfer applications require concrete, verifiable evidence of prejudice or danger rather than mere assertions to warrant the relocation of judicial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal case be transferred from one court to another based on unsubstantiated allegations of threats?
  • Is evidence of specific threats required to justify the transfer of a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Naeem Ahmad and others vs The State and others2021 MLD 1772, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 382 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-29
  narcotic substanceschain of custodyforensic report admissibilitycriminal appealsafe custody of samplesprimary evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged transportation of a large quantity of charas. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody for the narcotic samples and whether an attested photocopy of a forensic report is admissible as evidence without the author's testimony. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and secure transmission of the sample parcels from the recovery site to the laboratory. The court established that any break in the chain of custody vitiates the reliability of the forensic report. Furthermore, the court ruled that an attested photocopy of a forensic report is inadmissible as primary evidence under Section 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and Section 510, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, requiring the original document or proof of its loss to satisfy the requirements of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

  Questions settled

  • Is an attested photocopy of a forensic report admissible in evidence under Section 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, without the production of the original?
  • Does a break in the chain of custody of narcotic samples from the point of recovery to the laboratory vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution required to produce the original forensic report to invoke the presumption of admissibility under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Muslim Industry and others vs Director General T.O, Regulator of Trade2021 IHC 296 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-10-05Read full judgment →
• M/s Mol Pakistan Oil & Gas Company B.V. International vs Commissioner2021 ATIR 22 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-09-08Read full judgment →
• M/s Metro Guards (Pvt) Ltd vs Commissioner Inland Revenue (Range-II),2021 ATIR 29 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-11-01
  stay of recoverytax appealinterim reliefinherent powersCommissioner Inland Revenue Appealsdirectory provisionundue hardship
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue challenging the order of the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) refusing to extend a stay of tax recovery beyond the aggregate period of sixty days prescribed under sub-sections (1A) and (1AA) of section 128 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) has the power to extend a stay of tax recovery beyond sixty days during the pendency of an appeal when the delay in disposal is not attributable to the taxpayer. The Tribunal held that the time limits specified in section 128(1A) and (1AA) are directory rather than mandatory, and that the power to grant interim relief and extend a stay until the final disposal of the appeal is an inherent, incidental, and ancillary power attached to the appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal established the key principle that where an appellate authority is empowered to grant final relief, it inherently possesses the ancillary jurisdiction to grant and extend interim relief to prevent irreparable loss and protect the vested right of appeal from being frustrated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) can extend a stay of tax recovery beyond the period of sixty days prescribed under sections 128(1A) and 128(1AA) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Are the time limits specified for stay orders under sub-sections (1A) and (1AA) of section 128 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 mandatory or directory in nature?
  • Does an appellate authority possess the inherent or ancillary power to grant interim relief and stay tax recovery until the final disposal of an appeal even in the absence of explicit statutory extension provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Madinah Cloth Depot, Wah Cantt vs Commissioner Inland Revenue2021 ATIR 30 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-11-17Read full judgment →
• M/s M. Usman Trades, Rawalpindi vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Ltu,2021 ATIR 4 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-01-21Read full judgment →
• M/s Lucky Cement Limited vs Federation of Pakistan2021 SHC 1330 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-20Read full judgment →
• M/s Linkdotnet Telecom Limited vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Unit-23,2021 ATIR 2 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-01-21Read full judgment →
• M_s Liberty Car Parking (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Director vs Commissioner Inland Revenue (Ex-Commissioner of Income Tax _ Wealth Tax), Lahore etcPTCL 2021 CL. 633, 2021 SCP 28, 2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 274, 2021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  wealth taxcorporate authorizationboard resolutionprincipal officerjuristic entitytechnical groundsratification
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges an impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby Wealth Tax Appeals filed by the petitioner company were dismissed as not maintainable on the technical ground that they were not accompanied by a resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the Chief Executive to file the appeals. The core legal question is whether a company's appeal can be dismissed solely for the lack of a formal Board resolution when signed by its Chief Executive Officer, who qualifies as a principal officer under the relevant tax statute. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal on technicalities without considering that a company, as a juristic entity, can ratify the actions of its principal officer, and that the Chief Executive Officer falls within the definition of a principal officer under the Wealth Tax Act, 1963. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case back to the High Court for a decision on merits, establishing the principle that procedural technicalities regarding corporate authorization should not defeat substantive tax appeals when signed and instituted by a principal officer of the company.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal filed by a company can be dismissed solely for want of a Board of Directors resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to file it?
  • Does the Chief Executive Officer of a company qualify as a principal officer under the Wealth Tax Act, 1963?
  • Can a company ratify the act of its officer in signing and instituting legal proceedings on its behalf?
  • Whether procedural technicalities regarding corporate representation should override the adjudication of tax appeals on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s KB Business Services vs Commissioner Inland Revenue (District Zone),2021 ATIR 33 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-12-08Read full judgment →
• M/s Jet Green (Pvt.) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan etc2021 LHC 4654 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-13Read full judgment →
• M/s James Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore vs Province of Punjab2021 P T C L R 769, 2021 P SC 1017, 2021 SCMR 548, 2021 SCP 48 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-01
  Territorial jurisdictionCivil suitGovernment contractCause of actionCommercial activitySovereign functionsSection 20 CPCSuit against government
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned a suit for recovery filed by M/s James Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. against the Provincial Government, which was dismissed by the High Court for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the Civil Court at Lahore had territorial jurisdiction over a suit against the Provincial Government, given that the contract was executed in Faisalabad but approved in Lahore. The Supreme Court held that the Lahore Civil Court did possess territorial jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that when a government engages in commercial activities, such as road construction, it is not exercising sovereign functions and is subject to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in its entirety, akin to a corporation. Consequently, the cause of action arose partly in Lahore where the contract was approved, and the government could be deemed to carry on business there, satisfying clauses (a) and (c) of Section 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The impugned judgments were set aside, and the petition was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have territorial jurisdiction over a suit against the Provincial Government where a contract was executed in one city but approved in another?
  • Are commercial activities undertaken by a government considered part of its sovereign functions for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction?
  • How does Section 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to a government when it engages in commercial activities?
  • Can a government be deemed to 'carry on business' under Explanation II to Section 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when involved in commercial activities?
  • Does a cause of action arise in part where a government contract is approved, even if executed elsewhere?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Jalal Construction Company vs The Secretary, C & W Department,2024 LHC 329, 2025 PLD Lahore 379 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-09Read full judgment →
• M/s Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited vs Inland Revenue Officer,2021 IHC 122 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-19Read full judgment →
• M/s International Pipe Tube & Steel Re-Rolling Industries vs Commissioner2021 ATIR 31 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-12-02Read full judgment →
• M/s Ibrahim & Sons vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 1170 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-03Read full judgment →
• M/s Gul Ahmed Energy Ltd vs Court of Commission for Worksmen Comp. &2021 SHC 620 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-26Read full judgment →
• M/s Guidance Schooling System vs Mst. Seema Mohsin and 02 others2021 SHC 12 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-05Read full judgment →
• M/s Ghani Global Glass Ltd vs Federal Board of Revenue etc2021 [M] C L R 616, 2021 KLR Civil Cases 91, 2021 P C T L R 565, PTCL 2021 CL. · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-09Read full judgment →
• M/s Gas Company Ltd vs Zeeshan Usmani, etc2021 PSC 1070, 2021 SCMR 609, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-18
  master and servantcontractual employmentregularizationvested rightconstitutional jurisdictiontermination of contractservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a dispute over the regularization of contract employees of the Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. The core legal question was whether contract employees, whose employment had terminated by the efflux of time prior to filing a constitutional petition, were entitled to regularization based on the principle of parity with colleagues who had previously been regularized. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in ordering regularization. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the relationship between the company and its contract employees is governed by the 'master and servant' doctrine, and contract employees possess no vested right to regularization. Crucially, the Court distinguished the present case from the respondents' colleagues, noting that the colleagues were still in service when they sought relief, whereas the respondents filed their petitions eight months after their contracts had expired. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court could not order regularization for individuals who were no longer in service, as there was no existing employment relationship to sustain such a claim.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contract employee whose contract has expired by efflux of time possess a vested right to claim regularization?
  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to order the regularization of individuals who are no longer in service?
  • Does the principle of parity apply to contract employees who seek regularization after their employment relationship has already terminated?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Foundation Wind Energy-I (Pvt) Ltd vs Commissioner Inland Revenue,2021 ATIR 13 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-03-31Read full judgment →
• M/s Forel International Trading & others vs Waqas Ahmed Jat & others2021 SHC 1074, 2022 CLD 315, 2022 PLD Sindh 160 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-14Read full judgment →
• M/s Federal Bank for Co-Operatives vs Commissioner of Income Tax,2021 P C T L R 1503 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Fatal Yarn Pvt. Ltd. Faisalabad vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue,2021 SCP 176, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 529, 2021 PTD 1392, 2021 SCMR 1133, 2022 PCTLR · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-15
  sales taxinput tax creditshow cause noticepast and closed transactiontax assessmentfactual controversyex-parte proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment in a Sales Tax Reference concerning the petitioner’s tax liability and input tax credit claims under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The core legal questions addressed whether the High Court could overturn the Appellate Tribunal's factual findings on input tax credit, whether a previously adjudicated tax period could be re-scrutinized, and whether tax liability could be imposed for a period exceeding that specified in the show cause notice. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It held that while superior courts generally do not engage in factual controversies, intervention is warranted where a substantial defect in reading evidence exists, thereby affirming the disallowance of undocumented input tax credit. However, the Court ruled that the period already finalized in previous appellate proceedings was barred by the doctrine of past and closed transactions. Furthermore, imposing tax liability for a period not disclosed in the show cause notice is illegal and void, as it prejudices the taxpayer's defense. The Court directed recalculation of the tax liability accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a superior court interfere with the factual findings of an appellate tribunal if there is a substantial defect in the appreciation of evidence?
  • Does the doctrine of past and closed transaction bar the tax authorities from re-scrutinizing a tax period that has already been finalized in previous appellate proceedings?
  • Is an adjudication order imposing tax liability for a period not specified in the show cause notice legally valid?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s F.B. Traders vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue (Zone-I), Rto,2021 ATIR 27 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
• M/s Driveline Motors Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 720 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-05Read full judgment →
• M/s Dewan Cement Ltd vs Full Bench of National Industrial Relations2021 IHC 282 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-21Read full judgment →
• M/s Daddy's Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs Manisha Bhargava and Another2021 SCInd 78 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-02-11Read full judgment →
• M/s Continental Biscuit vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 4 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-24Read full judgment →
• M/s Comfort Oil Mills Pvt Ltd, M/s MSK Industries, M/s KKR Oil & Ghee Mills2021 SHC 1262 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-13Read full judgment →
• M/s Colony Textile Mills Limited and another vs First Punjab Modaraba2021 LHC 1774, 2021 CLD 1212, 2022 [M] CLR 1670 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-20
  banking recovery suitleave to defenddismissal in liminelimine controlFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001appellate jurisdictionprocedural delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court in a recovery suit, wherein the appellants' application for leave to defend was rejected. The core legal question was whether the Banking Court erred in its decision and whether the appeal merited admission. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the appellants failed to raise any substantial grounds, instead presenting vague and hypothetical arguments to delay the recovery process. The Court affirmed that procedural applications, such as requests for document production or expert handwriting analysis, are not maintainable before the grant of leave to defend. Furthermore, the Court invoked the doctrine of 'Limine Control,' reiterating that appellate courts possess the authority to dismiss meritless appeals without issuing notice to the respondent. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, aims to facilitate speedy justice, and courts must discourage the common practice of filing voluminous, unsubstantiated pleadings intended solely to obstruct the administration of justice and burden the judicial system.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be dismissed in limine by the High Court without issuing notice to the respondent?
  • Are procedural applications for document production or expert opinion maintainable before the grant of leave to defend in a banking recovery suit?
  • Does the filing of a voluminous and unsubstantiated application for leave to defend constitute an abuse of the process of law under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Civil Aviation Authority vs The Appellate Tribunal Inland RevenuePTCL 2021 CL. 804, 2021 SHC 562 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-07Read full judgment →
• M/s Cherat Cement Co. Ltd, Nowshera and others vs Federation of Pakistan2021 SCP 10 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Gas Infrastructure Development Cessreview petitionres judicataFederal Consolidated FundPublic Accountlegislative competencediscriminatory taxationfee versus tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This case arises from review petitions filed against the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 13.08.2020, which declared the Gas Infrastructure Development Cess Act, 2015 to be intra vires the Constitution. The core legal questions involved the constitutional validity of the Gas Infrastructure Development Cess Act, 2015, the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata where conflicting High Court judgments exist on the vires of a legislative enactment, the correlation between collection and expenditure of the cess, and whether the proceeds form part of the Federal Consolidated Fund or the Public Account. By a majority of 2:1, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, holding that a final judicial determination on the legitimacy of a legislative enactment acts as a judgment in rem and overrides conflicting lower court decisions, and that the executive's failure to immediately expend collected funds does not invalidate the statutory levy. The dissenting opinion by Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J., however, favored recalling the direction to recover arrears and holding certain provisions unconstitutional.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principle of res judicata applies when conflicting judgments of High Courts exist regarding the constitutional validity of a legislative enactment?
  • Whether proceeds collected under the Gas Infrastructure Development Cess Act, 2015 should form part of the Federal Consolidated Fund or the Public Account under Article 78 of the Constitution?
  • Whether a judge who recorded a dissenting opinion in the original judgment is legally competent to sit on the Bench hearing a review petition against that judgment?
  • Whether the collection of cess without immediate visible correlation to expenditure on promised infrastructural projects renders the levy unconstitutional?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Capital Builders & Contractors vs Pakistan Steel Mills & Ors2021 SHC 203 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-22Read full judgment →
• M/s Babri Cotton Mills, Habib Abad, Kohat vs Commissioner Inland2021 ATIR 28 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-10-27Read full judgment →
• M/s Ashraf Sugar Mills Limited, Lahore vs Cir, Zone-III, Ltu, Lahore2021 ATIR 14 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-04-21Read full judgment →
• M/s Al-Kauser Drinking Water vs Province of Sindh and 05 others2021 SHC 220 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-28Read full judgment →
• M/s Al-Jamrud Filling Station vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto,2021 ATIR 25 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-10-21Read full judgment →
• M/s Al-Hamd Steel Furnace vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 574 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-09Read full judgment →
• M/s Air Indus (Pvt) Ltd vs Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority2021 SHC 324, 2022 CLC 529 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-02Read full judgment →
• M/s Ahmed & Kamran Traders (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan & 052021 IHC 34 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Aftab A. Khan and Brothers vs Executive Engineer and Others2021 SHC 111 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
• M/s 3N-Lifemed Pharmaceuticals vs Government of Punjab through2021 LHC 7445 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muzamil Arif vs The State2021 YLR 1841 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-07
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of the doubtkidnapping for ransomextra-judicial confessionpolice torturejuvenile offendercriminal appealanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal arises from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the juvenile appellant for offences under sections 302 and 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including police pointation recoveries, a media broadcast confession, and mobile phone text messages. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence proving the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions, unreliable witness testimony, inadmissible media confessions obtained through torture, and missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence. The court laid down the principle that to sustain a conviction on a capital charge based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must provide an unbroken chain of evidence linking the accused to the crime without any missing links, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a media broadcast confession of an accused is admissible in evidence when not formally introduced by its maker?
  • What is the standard of proof required for circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction in a capital case?
  • Does a retracted confession allegedly procured through police torture carry any evidentiary value without being recorded before a judicial magistrate?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Nawaz vs Ishrat Rasool and another2021 LHC 4594, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 63, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 257, 2022 YLR · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-13
  exclusive jurisdictionFamily CourtMuslim Family Laws Ordinancesecond marriage without permissiontrial vitiatedcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from a private complaint filed by the respondent first wife against the petitioner husband under Section 6(5)(b) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, alleging a second marriage contracted without her permission during the subsistence of the first marriage. The Magistrate Section 30 convicted and sentenced the petitioner, and the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed his appeal. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether a complaint under Section 6(5)(b) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, must be exclusively tried by a Family Court acting as a Judicial Magistrate under Section 20 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, rather than by an ordinary Judicial Magistrate. The Court held that by virtue of Section 5 and Section 20 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, Family Courts possess exclusive jurisdiction to try offences under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The trial conducted by an ordinary Magistrate was without jurisdiction and violated Article 175(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Court laid down the principle that a complaint under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, can only be tried by a Family Court, and trials conducted by ordinary Magistrates are coram non judice and vitiated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a complaint under Section 6(5)(b) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, can be tried by an ordinary Judicial Magistrate or exclusively by a Family Court?
  • Does a trial conducted by a court lacking jurisdiction under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, stand vitiated?
  • What is the effect of Section 20 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, on the cognizance and trial of offences under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Hussain vs Director General, Pakistan Rangers, Head Quarters, Pakistan Rangers Punjab Lahore and another2021 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 20 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service appealunauthorized absencedisciplined forcedismissal from servicePakistan Rangersmisconductdisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal concerns a challenge against the dismissal of a member of the Pakistan Rangers, who was removed from service following an unauthorized absence and travel abroad. The appellant, a Lance Naik, proceeded on authorized leave but failed to report back for duty for over fifteen months, during which time he traveled to the United Arab Emirates without obtaining the required No Objection Certificate or approval from the competent authority. Upon his return, a Court of Inquiry was conducted, where the appellant admitted to the unauthorized absence, the unauthorized foreign travel, and the concealment of facts during the inquiry. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary action of dismissal and imprisonment was justified given the appellant's long service record and personal circumstances. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the disciplinary action was legally sound, emphasizing that members of a disciplined force are held to higher standards of conduct. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's admitted misconduct warranted dismissal and dismissed the appeal, affirming that leniency is not applicable where guilt is admitted and discipline is compromised.

  Questions settled

  • Does the unauthorized absence of a member of a disciplined force for over one year warrant dismissal from service?
  • Is a member of the Pakistan Rangers required to obtain formal approval before traveling abroad?
  • Can a service tribunal interfere with a disciplinary penalty where the appellant has admitted to the charges of misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Hussain Katpar vs The Province of Sindh and another2021 SHC 1084 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-23
  service mattersuspensionjurisdiction of High CourtArticle 212disciplinary proceedingscivil servantService Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged his suspension from service, initiated by the Government of Sindh following a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference against him. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging a suspension order, or if such matters were exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, affirming that matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, including suspension and disciplinary proceedings, fall squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973. The Court emphasized that the High Court is barred from interfering in such service matters. However, noting the absence of departmental proceedings since 2018, the Court directed the competent authority to initiate and conclude disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within one month, stressing that disciplinary actions against civil servants must be conducted expeditiously under the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 to prevent unnecessary hardship and litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a challenge against a suspension order issued to a civil servant?
  • Do disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant fall within the ambit of terms and conditions of service?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the High Court barred in service matters by Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Bhutta vs The State etc2021 LHC 6547, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 53 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-20
  post-arrest bailprohibitory limballotment of state landforged documentsanti-corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions filed by Muzaffar Bhutta and others seeking post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of case FIR No. 01/2021 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Khanewal, concerning offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations regarding the fraudulent transfer of state land. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail, noting that no role of demanding or receiving illegal gratification was attributed, no forensic report regarding forged documents was available, the offences largely fell outside the prohibitory limb of Section 497 Cr.P.C., and their further physical custody was not required. The key principle laid down is that where offences do not fall within the prohibitory limb, no incriminating material is recovered during investigation, and physical custody is no longer required, further incarceration of accused persons serves no useful purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of a forensic report regarding alleged forged documents provide a ground for considering post-arrest bail?
  • Whether continuous incarceration is justified when the physical custody of the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Ali Khan vs Shehzad Khan2021 YLR 1929 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-12-04Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Ahmad vs The State etc2021 PLJ Lahore 694, 2021 LHC 1388 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-12Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Ahmad vs The State and 2 others2021 P Cr. L J 1393 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-26
  dishonoured chequeSection 489-F PPCdischarge of accusedSection 63 CrPCcriminal breach of contractsecurity chequeadministrative orderconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a Judicial Magistrate's order discharging the accused in a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning a dishonoured cheque issued as security for a supply contract. The core legal questions were whether a Magistrate possesses the power to discharge an accused under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 suo motu, and whether a security cheque falls within the ambit of Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Lahore High Court held that a Magistrate is empowered to discharge an accused under Section 63, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, even without a formal police report, provided the order is based on a fair assessment of the facts. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that criminal proceedings under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, are not intended to settle disputed civil liabilities arising from breach of contract. The key principle laid down is that while Magistrates have discretionary administrative power to discharge an accused to prevent malicious prosecution, such power must be exercised judicially, and criminal machinery should not be misused for civil disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate have the power to discharge an accused under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 suo motu without a formal police report?
  • Does the dishonour of a cheque issued as security for a contract necessarily constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an order of discharge passed by a Magistrate an administrative or a judicial order?
  • Can criminal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be used to settle disputed civil liabilities arising from a breach of contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Muteen ur Rehman etc vs The State etc2021 LHC 8213, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 697 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-30
  pre-arrest bailwrongful confinementkidnappingmalafideFIR delaycriminal litigationbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of abduction and wrongful confinement. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances and the nature of the alleged offence. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, confirming the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The Court observed that a seven-day delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with existing civil and criminal litigation between the parties, indicated potential deliberation and malafide. Furthermore, the Court determined that the facts did not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 365 PPC, as the alleged confinement was not secret, potentially falling under Section 342 PPC instead. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court affirmed that the scope of pre-arrest bail allows for an examination of the merits of the case, particularly when there is a lack of incriminating material or evidence of ulterior motives. The principle established is that malafide can be inferred from the facts and circumstances, and the absence of incriminating material justifies pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a seven-day delay in lodging an FIR without explanation indicate deliberation and consultation?
  • Can the merits of a case be examined during the adjudication of a pre-arrest bail application?
  • Does the absence of secret confinement preclude the application of Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is independent, positive evidence of malafide required to grant pre-arrest bail, or can it be inferred from the facts and circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Muteeb Ali vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1115 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-24
  post-arrest bailidentification paradeprohibitory clausemurdercriminal investigationsupplementary statement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 302/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the murder of a victim who was shot while riding a motorcycle. Although the petitioner was not initially named in the First Information Report, the prosecution implicated him through a supplementary statement and subsequent identification parade. The investigation also led to the recovery of a motorcycle based on the petitioner's pointing out. The Lahore High Court examined the record and arguments presented. The Court held that the petitioner's connection to the commission of the offence, established through the identification parade and recovery, provided reasonable grounds to believe he was involved in the crime. Given that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently, the petition for post-arrest bail was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the implication of an accused through a supplementary statement and identification parade constitute reasonable grounds for refusing bail in a murder case?
  • Is an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 considered to fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be denied if the accused is connected to the crime through the recovery of evidence on his pointing out?
  Read full judgment →
• Mustajab-ul-Hassan vs The State2021 PHC 278 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-08-03Read full judgment →
• Mustafa Ali & 13 others vs The Government of Sindh and 13 others2021 SHC 32 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• Mushtaque Hussain vs The State2021 SHC 1320 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-20
  criminal misappropriationanti-corruptionburden of proofappreciation of evidencecriminal appealpublic servant corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the misappropriation of 2970 bags of government wheat during the 1996-97 procurement season, which resulted in a financial loss of Rs. 20,19,600 to the government exchequer. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the appellant had successfully substantiated any of the multiple, inconsistent defenses raised during the trial. The court held that the prosecution provided reliable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring oral and documentary evidence, including official stock reports and testimony, which clearly demonstrated the appellant's role as the Centre Incharge and his failure to account for the missing stock. Conversely, the appellant failed to produce any supporting evidence for his shifting defenses, which included allegations against contractors and the District Food Controller. The court affirmed the conviction, emphasizing that corruption offenses cause significant harm to the national economic structure and must be deterred. The principle laid down is that while an accused may raise multiple defenses, the burden remains on the accused to substantiate such pleas with evidence, whereas the prosecution must prove its case through consistent, reliable material.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused when they raise specific defenses to a charge of misappropriation?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution provides consistent documentary evidence of stock discrepancies despite the accused raising multiple, unsubstantiated defenses?
  • Is the failure of an accused to lead evidence in support of their defense pleas a relevant factor in assessing the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaque Hussain vs The State through Prosecutor General Sindh2021 SCP 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-07
  homicidemurdersentence reductionimprisonment for lifedeath sentencecriminal petitionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a homicide case where the petitioner, the complainant, challenged a judgment of the High Court of Sindh altering the respondent-accused's death sentence into imprisonment for life for an offense under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence from death to imprisonment for life given the brutality of the crime, and whether the accused could be re-incarcerated after serving his commuted sentence. The Supreme Court held that the petition fails because the respondent has already served out his full sentence of imprisonment for life, inclusive of remissions, and was released from prison. The Court laid down the principle that once a legal sentence of imprisonment for life has been served out by a convict, he cannot be recalled to face capital punishment, as a person cannot be vexed twice for the same offense.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering a sentence of death to imprisonment for life in a murder case?
  • Can a convict be recalled to undergo capital punishment after having fully served out a sentence of imprisonment for life inclusive of remissions?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaque Hussain vs The State through Prosebutor General Sindh2021 SCMR 1783, 2021 SCP 342, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-07
  homicidesentence reductionimprisonment for lifedeath sentencecriminal petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by the complainant challenging the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, whereby the respondent-accused's death sentence for murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was altered to imprisonment for life. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of death to imprisonment for life given the brutality of the crime. The Supreme Court held that the petition must fail and declined leave to appeal, reasoning that the respondent had already served out his full sentence of imprisonment for life inclusive of remissions and had been released from jail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused has already served a lawful sentence of imprisonment for life and has been released, the sentence cannot be enhanced or recalled to subject the person to further punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sentence of death can be enhanced after the accused has already served out a sentence of imprisonment for life and been released?
  • Does the reduction of a death penalty to imprisonment for life by the High Court warrant interference by the Supreme Court when the sentence has already been executed and served?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ali vs Multan Khan and others2021 P SC 409, 2016 SCMR 1836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-10
  pre-emption suitTalb-i-MuwathibatIslamic lawrepugnancy to Injunctions of Islamcease to have effectinterregnum period
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging the High Court's judgment dismissing the petitioner's pre-emption suit for failing to disclose the particulars of Talb-i-Muwathibat. The core legal question is whether a pre-emption suit filed during the interregnum when no pre-emption legislation was in the field is exempt from the requirement of pleading Talb-i-Muwathibat under section 35(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, following declarations of repugnancy under the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the exemption provided under section 35(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 regarding Talb-i-Muwathibat ceased to have force following the Shariat Appellate Bench's declaration in Haji Rana Muhammad Shabbir Ahmed Khan v. Government of Punjab Province, Lahore, and that classic Islamic law governs pre-emption suits filed during the interregnum. The key principles laid down are that laws declared repugnant to Islamic injunctions cease to have effect rather than being repealed under Article 264, and that suits instituted during the interregnum period between the annulment of the 1913 Act and the promulgation of new legislation are strictly bound by the requirement to plead particulars of Talb-i-Muwathibat.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expression 'cease to have effect' under Article 203D of the Constitution have the same meaning as 'repeal' under Article 264?
  • Are pre-emption suits filed during the interregnum period subject to the requirement of pleading particulars of Talb-i-Muwathibat?
  • What is the legal effect of the declaration of repugnancy made in Haji Rana Muhammad Shabbir Ahmed Khan v. Government of Punjab Province regarding section 35(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1825 · Lahore High Court · 2012-10-22
  Criminal appealRapeConviction set asideAcquittalBenefit of doubtDelay in FIRMedical evidenceCorroborationPrivate complaintVictim's no-objection
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for rape, stemming from a private complaint. The core legal questions revolved around the impact of significant delays in lodging the FIR and conducting the medical examination, the lack of corroboration for the victim's statement, and the effect of the victim's subsequent 'no objection' to the appeal. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, primarily due to the unexplained delays, the absence of corroboration for the victim's testimony from medical evidence or the alleged eyewitness, and the police investigation's finding of falsity. The victim's 'no objection' to the appeal further supported the decision to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant, leading to his acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for rape be sustained solely on the victim's statement without corroboration from medical evidence or eyewitnesses?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR and conducting a medical examination weaken the prosecution's case in a rape trial?
  • What is the impact of a victim's 'no objection' to the acceptance of an appeal against a rape conviction?
  • Can a police investigation's finding that a case is false be considered when evaluating the prosecution's evidence in a private criminal complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Fayaz & 2 others2021 PHC 122 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-22Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad and others vs State and othersPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 478 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-10
  murdercriminal appealbenefit of doubtchance witnessdelay in FIRmedical evidenceprivate complaintacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the trial court in a private complaint arising from a murder case, alongside related matters concerning acquittal and sentence enhancement. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony, the effect of unexplained inordinate delay in reporting the crime, the status of chance witnesses without plausible explanation for their presence, and the corroborative value of medical evidence when the primary testimony is shaky. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt due to inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, doubtful presence and chance nature of eyewitnesses, lack of corroborative recoveries, and missing medical records. The court laid down the principles that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt is sufficient to acquit an accused, that the prosecution must stand on its own legs without relying on defense weaknesses, and that medical evidence cannot independently establish identity or guilt in an unwitnessed crime.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained inordinate delay in reporting a crime to the police render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Can the testimony of closely related eyewitnesses who are chance witnesses be relied upon without a plausible explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • What is the evidentiary value of medical evidence when the main occurrence remains unwitnessed and the ocular account is disbelieved?
  • Is a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's story sufficient to grant the benefit of doubt and acquit the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Musawar Kamal vs Secretary, Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Resources, Government Of Pakistan and 5 others2021 CLC 337 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-10-19Read full judgment →
• Murshid vs The State2021 MLD 133 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-09
  criminal appealdeath sentencemitigating circumstancemotiveeye-witness testimonydelayed FIRrelated witnesssentencing discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges a conviction and death sentence for murder and attempted murder. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite a delayed FIR, and whether the death sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. The Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution's evidence—comprising consistent eye-witness testimony, recovery of the murder weapon, and medical evidence—reliable and sufficient. However, the Court reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment. The key principles laid down are that a delayed FIR is not fatal to the prosecution's case if the delay is adequately explained by the complainant's circumstances. Furthermore, the testimony of related or police witnesses is credible absent evidence of personal enmity or mala fide. Crucially, where the prosecution fails to allege or prove a motive for the crime, the Court may treat this as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment, ensuring the safe administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is a delay in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case if the delay is adequately explained?
  • Can the testimony of related or police witnesses be relied upon in the absence of proven enmity or mala fide?
  • Does the absence of a proven motive for murder constitute a mitigating circumstance justifying the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mureed Hussain Bhatti vs SHO, Police Station Chahlyak Multan etc2021 PLJ Cr.C (Lahore) 817 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-29
  sealing of housecivil disputejoint propertycriminal court interferencepossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition assails the orders of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for sealing a residential house in possession of Respondent No. 2. The core legal question was whether a residential house involved in a pending civil dispute and joint ownership can be ordered to be sealed through criminal proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that a residential house currently inhabited and subject to unresolved civil litigation cannot be ordered to be sealed by criminal courts, as criminal courts must not interfere in civil disputes or encourage multiplicity of litigation. The key principle laid down is that matters of ownership and possession of property must be governed by civil laws, and criminal forums cannot be utilized to settle civil property disputes or pressurize parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal court order the sealing of a residential house under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while civil suits regarding the property are pending?
  • Whether criminal courts should interfere in civil disputes concerning the ownership and possession of property?
  • Is it permissible to use criminal proceedings as a tool to resolve joint property disputes between parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Murali vs State rep. by the Inspector of Police2021 SCInd 1, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 941 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-05
  non-compoundable offencesreduction of sentenceamicable settlementmitigating circumstancesattempt to murdervoluntarily causing hurtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower forums upholding the convictions of the appellants under Sections 324, 307, and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for assaulting the victim following a sports dispute. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether an offence that is non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be compounded, and whether an amicable settlement between the parties can serve as a relevant mitigating factor for reducing the quantum of sentence. The Court held that non-compoundable offences cannot be permitted to be compounded contrary to statutory prohibitions, but established that a voluntary compromise and subsequent amicable settlement between the parties constitute a valid and relevant mitigating circumstance warranting a reduction of the substantive sentence to the period already undergone. The key principle laid down is that while courts cannot bypass the statutory bar against compounding non-compoundable offences, they may exercise judicial discretion to reduce prison sentences based on post-conviction settlements and the rehabilitation of offenders.

  Questions settled

  • Can an offence that is explicitly categorized as non-compoundable under the Code of Criminal Procedure be compounded by the court based on a settlement?
  • Is a post-conviction amicable settlement between the accused and the victim a relevant factor for reducing the quantum of sentence in non-compoundable cases?
  • Whether courts can reduce substantive prison sentences to the period already undergone in view of long-standing compromises between warring parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Murad Ali vs The State2021 YLR 984 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-18
  narcotics possessionchain of custodychemical analyzer reportcriminal appealmalkhana registerevidentiary value of photographsControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for possession of 13 kilograms of hashish under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody for the recovered narcotics, the impact of non-production of the Malkhana register (Register No. 13), and the evidentiary value of a photograph produced by the defense to allege false implication. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was sound. The Court ruled that the chain of custody remains intact when narcotics are sealed on-site and received by the chemical analyzer in sealed condition, rendering the examination of the bearer unnecessary in the absence of unexplained transmission delays. Furthermore, the Court established that the non-production of the Malkhana register is not fatal to the prosecution's case when custody is otherwise proven. Finally, the Court held that photographic evidence requires independent authentication by the photographer or a witness to be admissible, and minor testimonial contradictions do not warrant acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Is the non-production of the Malkhana register (Register No. 13) fatal to the prosecution's case in narcotics trials?
  • Does the chain of custody remain unbroken if narcotics are sealed on-site and received by the chemical analyzer in sealed condition?
  • Is the examination of the bearer of narcotics necessary to prove the chain of custody in all cases?
  • Can a photograph produced during a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted as evidence without independent authentication?
  Read full judgment →
• Muqadar Ali alias Imran vs The State2021 MLD 1734 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-18
  explosive substancescriminal appealbenefit of doubtsafe custody of recoverycontradictory evidenceanti-terrorismacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908 and sentencing him to five years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of the explosive substance beyond a reasonable doubt and whether material contradictions in the description of the recovered item and lack of safe custody vitiated the conviction. The Sindh High Court held that discrepancies between the police testimony stating a 'hand grenade' was recovered versus the Bomb Disposal Unit report describing a 'rifle grenade', coupled with the failure to prove safe custody of the explosive at the police station malkhana, created insurmountable doubt in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reaffirming the principle that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a material contradiction between police testimony and the bomb disposal report regarding the nature of a recovered explosive create reasonable doubt?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody of recovered explosive substances at the police malkhana through competent witnesses?
  • Does the failure to establish safe custody of a recovered weapon or explosive render the recovery unbelievable?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution case entitle the accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Muntazir Khan vs The State2021 PHC 210, 2022 PCr. LJ 517 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-30Read full judgment →
• Munira Bibi vs Additional District Judge, etc2021 LHC 511 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-13Read full judgment →
• Munir vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1404 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-09
  murderbenefit of the doubtocular evidencepost-mortem delaywithholding of evidencecriminal appealdeath sentenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt given the alleged discrepancies in ocular testimony, the withholding of independent witnesses, and the unexplained delay in the post-mortem examination. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt, noting that the ocular account was unreliable, independent witnesses were withheld, and the post-mortem delay suggested the fabrication of evidence. Furthermore, the motive was not proven, and forensic evidence was inconclusive. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the prosecution must prove its case to the hilt, and any reasonable doubt, even a single loophole or lacuna, must be resolved in favor of the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the death sentence was not confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withholding of an independent witness by the prosecution allow for an adverse inference under the law of evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the motive it has specifically set up?
  • Does a significant delay in conducting a post-mortem examination create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events?
  • Is abscondance of an accused sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction in the absence of other corroborating proof?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Hussain and 3 others vs Province Of Sindh and others2022 SCMR 650, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 877 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-28
  competitive examinationwaiting listPublic Service CommissionArticle 199 of the Constitutionconstitutional jurisdictionrecruitment processvacant posts
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court of Sindh judgment dismissing a constitutional petition filed by unsuccessful candidates seeking appointment against posts that became vacant after recommended candidates failed to join or subsequently quit. The core legal question was whether the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC) was obligated to maintain a waiting list to fill subsequent vacancies from candidates who passed the examination but failed to meet the merit cutoff. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that in competitive examinations, all advertised vacancies are filled in one selection process. In the absence of explicit provisions in the law or regulations requiring the SPSC to maintain a waiting list, no legal or constitutional right accrues to unrecommended candidates to claim appointment against leftover vacancies. The Court reaffirmed that such vacant posts must generally be re-advertised for open competition to foster merit and transparency. Furthermore, the High Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 199 to create rights not provided by law. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unrecommended candidate acquire a legal right to appointment against posts that subsequently fall vacant due to non-joining or resignation of selected candidates?
  • Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution create legal rights not provided for by statute or statutory regulations?
  • Is a Public Service Commission required to maintain a waiting list for competitive examinations in the absence of specific rules mandating it?
  • Must posts remaining vacant due to non-joining of selected candidates in a competitive examination be re-advertised for open competition?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary Board of Revenue, Karachi and 11 others2021 CLC 1704 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-12Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed and others vs Province Of Sindh and others2021 SHC 1342 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-21Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs LDA etc2021 PLJ Lahore 543 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-23Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs Hassan Hussain through LRs. and others2021 CLC 1575 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-02Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs Additional District Judge, etcPLJ 2021, Lahore 792 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-25Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 290 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-03
  murderbenefit of doubtmedical evidenceocular accountmotivecapital punishmentcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sessions Court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to death, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the consistency between the time of incident in the FIR and medical evidence regarding time of death, the proof of motive, and the reliability of weapon recovery from an open place. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring discrepancies in the medical evidence indicating the crime occurred at a different time, doubtful presence of eyewitnesses, unproven motive, and inaccessible weapon recovery. The court laid down the principle that a criminal case must stand on its own legs, and even a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between the time of death stated in the medical evidence and the time of occurrence in the FIR render the eyewitness account doubtful?
  • Can an accused be convicted on the basis of an uncorroborated and shaky ocular account in a night-time incident without proof of lighting arrangements?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon from an accessible open place sufficient to corroborate a murder charge?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to prove motive in a capital case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muneeza Nisa vs Ahmed Nawaz and others2021 MLD 957 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muneer Khan and another vs The State and another2022 MLD 157 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-16
  CCTV footageadmissibility of evidencevehicle theftmodern devicescriminal appealrecovery of stolen propertyQanun-e-Shahadat Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for the theft of a motor vehicle under Sections 381-A, 411, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question concerned the admissibility and evidentiary value of CCTV footage used to identify the accused, given the absence of direct ocular testimony. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The Court held that CCTV footage is admissible under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, which permits evidence derived from modern devices. The Court established that for such footage to be admissible, the prosecution must examine the person who extracted or prepared the footage to prove its authenticity. Since the prosecution witness who copied the footage onto a USB drive was examined and withstood cross-examination, and because the appellants subsequently led to the recovery of the stolen vehicle, the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment reinforces that modern digital evidence, when properly authenticated, serves as a valid basis for criminal conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Is CCTV footage admissible as evidence in criminal trials under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • What is the requirement for proving the genuineness of CCTV footage in a criminal trial?
  • Does the recovery of stolen property following identification via CCTV footage corroborate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muneer Ahmed & 02 others vs Health Department, Government of Sindh2021 SHC 406 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-30
  service matterwrit jurisdictionsuspension from serviceterms and conditions of serviceouster of jurisdictioncivil servantdisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the suspension of civil servants and the subsequent withdrawal of their reinstatement by the Health Department, Government of Sindh. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses writ jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the suspension of a civil servant, or if such matters fall within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, dismissing it in limine. Relying on Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973, the Court affirmed that matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, including disciplinary proceedings and suspension, are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court established that suspension is a temporary administrative arrangement, not a final punishment, and judicial interference at the suspension stage would disrupt departmental discipline. Consequently, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such petitions, as civil servants must exhaust their remedies before the appropriate Service Tribunal. The Court directed that disciplinary proceedings be finalized within two months, ensuring the petitioners receive their salaries during the interim period.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition challenging the suspension of a civil servant?
  • Are disciplinary proceedings and suspension orders considered matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters?
  • Is a suspension order considered a punishment or a temporary administrative arrangement?
  Read full judgment →
• Munaza Yasmeen and others vs National Industrial Relation Commission &2021 SHC 1086 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-22
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionmaintainabilityindustrial relationsunfair labour practicealternative remedynon-prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by a Single Member Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which had dismissed the petitioners' grievance petitions regarding transfer orders. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to entertain a petition against an order of the NIRC when an appellate remedy was available and had already been invoked. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It observed that the petitioners had already filed an appeal before the Full Bench of the NIRC, which was subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution. Because that appellate order remained in the field and the petitioners failed to seek its recall or pursue the appropriate legal remedy before the NIRC, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not exercise its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction where an alternative, efficacious statutory remedy has been invoked and exhausted, or where the petitioner has failed to pursue available appellate forums.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 against an order of the National Industrial Relations Commission when an appellate remedy is available?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable if the petitioner has already invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission but failed to pursue it?
  • Does the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution by the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission preclude the High Court from entertaining a petition on the same subject matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawara Begum vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 20 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
• Munawar Sultan and others vs Defence Housing Authority and others2021 IHC 272 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-28Read full judgment →
• Munawar Lal vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary & 062021 PHC 344, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1004 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-21
  Cantonment Board electiondisqualification of candidateservice of statutory bodycontract employeewrit jurisdictionnomination paperselection appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order passed by the Appellate Authority/District Judge, Bannu, which allowed a candidate to contest the Cantonment Board elections after his nomination papers were initially rejected by the Returning Officer. The core legal question was whether the respondent, a contract employee of the University of Science & Technology Bannu, was disqualified from contesting the election under Section 60(1)(g) of the Cantonment Ordinance, 2002, on the grounds of being in the service of a statutory body. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Appellate Authority's decision. The court held that, pursuant to Section 3 of the University of Science and Technology Bannu Service Statutes, 2018, contract employees are expressly excluded from the application of the university's service statutes. Consequently, the court determined that the respondent did not fall within the disqualification criteria of being in the 'service of a statutory body' as contemplated by the Cantonment Ordinance, 2002. The impugned order was found to be free from jurisdictional defect or legal infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contract employee of a university qualify as being in the service of a statutory body for the purpose of disqualification under Section 60(1)(g) of the Cantonment Ordinance, 2002?
  • Are contract employees governed by the service statutes of the University of Science & Technology Bannu?
  • Can an appellate authority set aside the rejection of nomination papers if the candidate does not fall under the disqualification criteria of the Cantonment Ordinance, 2002?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ali Narejo vs Judge Anti-Terrorism Shikarpur and others2021 SHC 1142 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-16Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ali Mahar vs P.O Sindh through Secretary Phed & Others2021 SHC 1210 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ahmed Chief Editor Daily Sama and another vs Muhammad Ashraf and others2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 284, 2021 PLD Supreme Court 564, 2021 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-05
  defamationex parte decreespecial damagesgeneral damagesquantum of damagesjudicial discretionmental agony
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, editors of a newspaper, challenged an Islamabad High Court judgment that affirmed an ex parte decree awarding fifteen million rupees in damages for defamation. The core legal question was whether a court, when granting an ex parte decree, is bound to assess the quantum of damages judicially or may mechanically award the full amount claimed. The Supreme Court held that while courts have the discretion to pass ex parte decrees, they must exercise judicial mind to assess the credibility and evidence of each item of the claim. The Court found that the lower courts failed to verify the plaintiff's claims for special damages, specifically regarding bodily injury and career loss, which were unsupported by evidence. The Court established that special damages require proof of actual loss, while general damages for mental agony should be assessed via a rule of thumb, ensuring they are compensatory rather than punitive. Consequently, the Court reduced the damages to the statutory minimum of three hundred thousand rupees and ordered the publication of an apology under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court required to assess the quantum of damages judicially when passing an ex parte decree?
  • Does the failure of a defendant to file a written statement absolve the court of the duty to verify the plaintiff's claim for damages?
  • What is the distinction between special damages and general damages in defamation suits?
  • Can a court award special damages without the plaintiff adducing evidence to prove the specific items of loss?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz ul Haq vs State2021 SHC 801 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Hussain vs Addl. District Judge, etc2021 LHC 7437 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-21Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Hussain s/o Noor Alam Shah vs State through Advocate-General2021 SC AJK 50 · Special Court For Speedy Trials · 2021-07-15Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz alias Bhutto vs The State & another2021 P Cr. L J 1300, 2021 LHC 1144, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 511 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-21
  pre-arrest bailbailable offenceindefeasible right to bailjudicial discretionlibertycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a criminal petition filed before the Lahore High Court seeking pre-arrest bail in a case involving bailable offences under Sections 337-F(i) and 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the petitioner's earlier bail application. The core legal question was whether a court has the discretion to refuse bail in bailable offences on grounds of heinousness or gravity of allegations. The Lahore High Court held that in bailable offences, the grant of bail is an indefeasible right and not a matter of grace or concession, leaving courts with no discretion to refuse it regardless of the perceived gravity of the crime or emotional factors. The key principle laid down is that liberty in bailable offences is a precious constitutional right, and courts must strictly apply the law without being influenced by emotion, sympathy, or the heinous nature of the accusations when the legislature has explicitly classified the offences as bailable.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have the discretion to refuse bail to an accused charged with a bailable offence?
  • Is the grant of bail in a bailable offence considered a matter of right or a concession?
  • Can bail granted under Section 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be cancelled on grounds like intimidating witnesses?
  • Can the heinous nature of an alleged bailable offence justify the denial of bail by a court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali Shaikh vs Haji Gahino Khan Jatoi2021 SHC 1298 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mullazim Hussain and another vs The State and another2021 MLD 980 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-30
  benefit of doubttest identification paradekidnapping for ransomcriminal appealanti-terrorismrecovery evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for kidnapping for ransom and terrorism-related offenses. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant evidentiary gaps. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies, including a flawed test identification parade, failure to recover the alleged ransom money or weapons with judicial certainty, and the absence of call data records to link the appellants to the ransom demands. Furthermore, the delay in recording the abductee's statement and the failure to produce the alleged sources of light at the crime scene created substantial doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that where a single reasonable doubt exists, the benefit must be extended to the accused, and an accused cannot be convicted on the basis of abscondence alone when direct evidence is insufficient.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of abscondence when the direct evidence is insufficient?
  • Does the failure to produce call data records for alleged ransom calls undermine the prosecution's case in a kidnapping trial?
  • What is the legal consequence of a flawed test identification parade where the age of dummies is not recorded and the accused were paraded jointly?
  • Is the prosecution's case weakened when the alleged sources of light at the scene of occurrence are not produced or documented?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar Ahmed and 6 others vs M/s. Export Processing Zone Authority2021 PLJ Tr.C. (NIRC) 96 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2020-12-18
  jurisdictionIndustrial Relations CommissionExport Processing Zone Authorityexemption from labour lawsunfair labour practicesmaintainabilitytrade union
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, office-bearers of a workers' union, filed a petition under Section 54(e) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 against the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA), alleging victimization and unfair labour practices due to their trade union activities, and seeking injunctions against suspension, transfer, or termination. The core legal question was whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has jurisdiction to entertain petitions against the EPZA in view of statutory exemptions from labour laws. The Commission held that the notification dated 10.10.1982 exempting EPZA from the applicability of labour laws remains valid as clarified by the Ministry of Industries and Production Division, rendering the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 inapplicable to the respondent establishment. Consequently, the Commission lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, and the petition along with ancillary applications was dismissed as not maintainable. The key principle laid down is that establishments exempted from labour laws by a valid government notification are outside the purview of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, barring the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Export Processing Zone Authority is exempt from the applicability of labour laws including the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction to entertain petitions filed by workers of the Export Processing Zone Authority?
  • Are the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 applicable to the Export Processing Zone Authority in light of the notification dated 10.10.1982?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar & another vs The State2021 SHC 276 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18
  post-arrest bailprinciple of consistencyidentification parademurdercriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicants, Mukhtiar and another, who were charged with the murder of a public servant, PC Abdul Hameed, while discharging his lawful duties. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the concession of bail, particularly given the principle of consistency, as a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail by the trial court. The applicants argued their innocence, claiming false implication and that the identification parade was conducted with significant delay. The State opposed the bail, citing the recovery of the crime weapon. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, noting that their names were absent from the FIR, the identification parade occurred three days after their arrest, and the principle of consistency applied because a co-accused with a similar role had already been admitted to bail. The Court further observed that the recovery of the crime weapon was alleged to be a result of foistation. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to the furnishing of surety.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of consistency apply when a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail?
  • Can bail be granted when the recovery of the crime weapon is alleged to be a result of foistation?
  • Is a delay in holding an identification parade a relevant factor in determining the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate vs Learned Advocate General2021 PLJ Lahore 777 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-14Read full judgment →
• Mukhtaj etc vs State etc2021 PHC 328 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mukhtair Ahmed vs The State2021 YLR 416 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-30
  narcotic substancerepresentative samplechemical analysisburden of proofsentencing guidelinescriminal appealrecovery of narcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 285 kilograms of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the quantity of narcotics recovered, given that samples were taken from each packet rather than from every individual slab contained within those packets, and whether the trial court's method of calculating weight based on averages was legally permissible. The Court held that the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory guidelines established in Ameer Zeb v. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380), which requires a separate sample from every individual slab or container to establish the nature of the substance. Consequently, the Court found that only the quantity actually sampled and tested (2,260 grams) could be attributed to the appellant. The key principle laid down is that where narcotic substances are recovered in multiple units, failure to sample each individual unit renders it unsafe to rely on the prosecution's claim regarding the total weight, necessitating that only the tested quantity be considered for sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Is a sample taken from a packet containing multiple slabs considered a representative sample of all slabs within that packet?
  • Can a trial court determine the weight of recovered narcotics by averaging the weight of slabs when individual slabs were not weighed separately?
  • If samples are not taken from every individual slab of a recovered narcotic substance, what quantity of the substance can be legally attributed to the accused?
  • Does the failure to sample every individual slab of a narcotic substance violate the guidelines set forth in Ameer Zeb v. The State?
  Read full judgment →