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.

• Muhammad Safdar vs Chairman National Accountability Bureau2021 PLJ Peshawar 111 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs Chairman NAB etc2022 P Cr.L J 101, 2022 P Cr.L J 59, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 111, 2021 PHC 136 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-27
  pre-arrest bailNational Accountability Bureauassets beyond known sources of incomemala fidepolitical victimizationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed before the Peshawar High Court by Muhammad Safdar seeking pre-arrest bail in an inquiry conducted by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 regarding the alleged accumulation of assets beyond known sources of income. The core legal question centered on whether the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for pre-arrest bail and whether the issuance of warrants of arrest by NAB was tainted with mala fide and political victimization. The Court held that while evaluating pre-arrest bail in accountability matters, the High Court does not determine the merits of the assets but examines the existence of mala fide and a prima facie case. Finding clear indicators of political victimization, simultaneous parallel proceedings, and unexplained gaps in inquiry notices linked to political criticism, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, ruling that protection against arbitrary arrest is essential to uphold the presumption of innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court examine the legitimacy of accumulated assets while deciding a pre-arrest bail petition under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • What factors must a constitutional court consider when determining mala fide in a pre-arrest bail application against the National Accountability Bureau?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to an accused in a National Accountability Bureau inquiry if the arrest is found to be tainted with political victimization?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Akhtar vs Justice of Peace, etc2021 LHC 6829, 2022 PLD Lahore 516 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saee Khan, Nasreen Bibi vs Judge Banking Court, etc2021 CLD 536, 2021 [M] C L R 1510, 2021 P C T L R 177, 2021 LHC 36 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State2022 SCMR 690, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-09
  murderocular accountinterested witnesssolitary witnessmedical evidencesubstitutionrecovery of weaponlife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302(b) PPC, where the Trial Court awarded the death penalty, later commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court. The petitioner challenged the conviction on the grounds of witness contradictions, the interested nature of the complainant's testimony (the deceased's mother), and the High Court's rejection of motive and recovery evidence. The Supreme Court held that the ocular account provided by the mother and another witness was consistent, reliable, and corroborated by medical evidence. The Court clarified that the testimony of a relative cannot be discarded absent proof of previous enmity or ill-will, noting that a mother is unlikely to falsely implicate her husband while letting the real killer of her son go free. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the quality of evidence outweighs the quantity of witnesses, and even a solitary witness can sustain a conviction if they inspire confidence. Finding no merit in the challenges to the recovery of the weapon or the ocular evidence, the petition was dismissed.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs KDA & Others2021 SHC 1154 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Raja vs The State2021 PLD Lahore 831, 2021 LHC 2796 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-28
  corruption and corrupt practicesdisproportionate assetsburden of proofabscondingnational accountabilitypublic servantcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of an Accountability Court convicting the appellant under Section 9(a)(v) read with Section 10 and Section 31-A of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for accumulating assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and for absconding. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established the foundational facts regarding corruption and illicit assets, and whether the charge of absconding was proved in accordance with the law. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden of proof regarding the accumulation of assets beyond known sources and did not legally establish absconding, especially given that the appellant's absence abroad was covered by approved leave. Furthermore, key properties in question were not forfeited by the trial court, and the appellant provided a plausible explanation regarding his family's overseas financial remittances and legitimate sources. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The key principles laid down are that the prosecution must first establish a reasonable case and preliminary facts of guilt before the burden shifts to the accused, and mere possession of assets without proving corrupt practices or misuse of authority does not sustain a conviction under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution must establish preliminary facts and a reasonable case before the burden of proof shifts to the accused under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Does mere possession of pecuniary resources or properties by a public servant automatically constitute an offence of corruption without proof of misuse of authority?
  • What constitutes legal proof of absconding to attract penal consequences under Section 31-A of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the primary investigating officer is not produced as a witness and no secondary evidence is led to prove the investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saddiq and another vs Ghulam Sarwar and 3 others2021 MLD 2123 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rustam vs Registrar, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar and 22022 PLC (C.S.) 1239 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-22
  upgradationretrospective upgradationcivil servants promotion policyretired employees parityconstitutional petitionstagnation in serviceterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired Private Secretary of the Peshawar High Court, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the orders of the Administrative Committee which dismissed his representation and review petition seeking retrospective proforma upgradation to BPS-20 based on the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Promotion Policy, 2009. The core legal question was whether a retired civil servant is entitled to retrospective upgradation and parity with serving employees under the promotion and upgradation policies. The court held that upgradation is not a promotion, serves to address stagnation in isolated posts, is subject to specific criteria including a minimum stay in the post, and that retired civil servants form a distinct class from serving employees and cannot claim parity with subsequent revisions or upgradations granted after their retirement. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retired civil servant can claim retrospective upgradation of his post after retirement?
  • Does upgradation of a post under government policy constitute promotion?
  • Can retired civil servants claim parity with serving employees regarding revised pay scales or upgradations granted after retirement?
  • What are the pre-conditions and length of service requirements for the upgradation of posts due to individual hardship cases under the government policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1109 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-25
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailnarcotics controlshort sentencepunishment in advancecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner seeking suspension of his sentence and release on bail pending the adjudication of his appeal. The petitioner had been convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to four years and six months of rigorous imprisonment for the recovery of 1110 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s sentence should be suspended during the pendency of his appeal, given the short duration of the sentence and the lack of prospects for an early hearing. The Court held that where the sentence is short and there is no likelihood of the appeal being decided in the near future, refusing to suspend the sentence would effectively result in the petitioner serving the entire term before the appeal is heard on merits, which constitutes punishment in advance. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner had not misused the concession of bail granted during the trial. Consequently, the Court suspended the sentence and admitted the petitioner to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended pending appeal if there is no prospect of an early hearing?
  • Does the fact that a convict did not misuse bail during trial support a request for suspension of sentence pending appeal?
  • Is it appropriate to suspend a sentence where the duration of imprisonment is short and the appellant might serve the entire term before the appeal is decided?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan Arshad and others vs Hafiz Abdul Sattar and another2021 IHC 266, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 270 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-02
  age relaxationcivil service appointmentfederal government servantprovincial government servantstatutory interpretationintra-court appealpublic employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged a judgment setting aside the appointment of the appellant as an Assistant Scientific Officer (BPS-16) at the National Institute of Health (NIH). The core legal question was whether the appellant, a provincial government servant, was entitled to a ten-year age relaxation under federal rules intended for federal government servants, in addition to a general five-year relaxation. The court held that the appointment was unlawful because the ten-year age relaxation provided under the Civil Posts (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1993, is restricted exclusively to federal government servants who have completed two years of continuous service in the federal government. The court affirmed that statutory rules granting age relaxation to "government servants" must be interpreted restrictively within the context of the specific government (federal or provincial) to which the rules apply. Consequently, the appellant, being a provincial employee, could not claim the benefit of federal age relaxation rules, and the NIH's grant of such relaxation was unauthorized and invalid.

  Questions settled

  • Does the ten-year age relaxation under the Civil Posts (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1993 apply to provincial government servants?
  • Can a provincial government servant claim the benefit of age relaxation rules specifically framed for federal government servants?
  • Is an autonomous body like the National Institute of Health bound by the age relaxation policies it explicitly references in its recruitment advertisements?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan & 2 others vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank & another2021 LHC 5758 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State, etc2021 LHC 6946, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 523, 2022 PCr. LJ 1005 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-11
  private defenseself-defenseSection 342 statementappreciation of evidencemurderburden of proofexcessive force
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted for the murder of Safdar Iqbal under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the case beyond reasonable doubt and whether the appellant’s plea of self-defense, articulated in his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justified his actions. The Court found the prosecution’s ocular evidence unreliable due to unexplained delays and inconsistencies, effectively rejecting it. However, upon accepting the appellant’s statement in its entirety, the Court held that while the appellant faced an altercation, he exceeded the right of private defense by firing multiple shots at close range against unarmed attackers. The Court affirmed the conviction, establishing the principle that when prosecution evidence is discarded, an accused’s statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be evaluated as a whole; if the admitted facts demonstrate that the accused exceeded the proportionate use of force necessary for self-defense, the plea of private defense fails, and the conviction is legally sustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted based on their own statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the prosecution's evidence is rejected?
  • Does the right of private defense extend to using lethal force against attackers who are not armed with firearms?
  • What is the legal effect of accepting an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in its entirety when the prosecution fails to prove its case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State and others2021 MLD 564 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1701 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-02
  pre-arrest bailunlawful assemblytwo versions of the incidentfurther inquirymurderous assaultcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated petitions for pre-arrest bail arising from FIR No. 151/2020 registered at Police Station Noshera, District Khushab, involving allegations of offences under Sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and launched a murderous assault, resulting in injuries to five individuals. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the specific nature of the injuries attributed to them and the existence of conflicting versions of the incident. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail. It reasoned that one petitioner's injury attribution required further inquiry due to the complainant's failure to appear before the medical board, while the injuries attributed to others were bailable. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that where two conflicting versions of an incident exist, the determination of the aggressor is a matter for the trial court after recording evidence, thereby justifying the grant of pre-arrest bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of two conflicting versions of an incident justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the prosecution's medical evidence requires further inquiry due to the complainant's failure to appear before a medical board?
  • Should the determination of the aggressor in a criminal case be decided at the bail stage or during the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs SSP Complaint Cell Tando Allahyar & Others2021 SHC 912 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sheraz Kamal vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2021 SHC 122 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 416 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-03
  private complaintcriminal investigationpolice challanprosecution evidencemagisterial jurisdictioncomplainant rightsFIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal, which set aside a Magistrate's order dismissing a private complaint. The core legal question was whether a complainant, dissatisfied with the police investigation and the subsequent challan, is precluded from filing a private complaint after the charge has already been framed in the state-led criminal case. The Lahore High Court upheld the Additional Sessions Judge's decision, dismissing the petition in limine. The Court held that the Magistrate erred in dismissing the private complaint solely because the state case had progressed to the stage of prosecution evidence. The key principle laid down is that a complainant possesses an inherent legal right to file a private complaint against accused persons if they are dissatisfied with the police investigation, regardless of the stage of the state-led criminal proceedings. The Court affirmed that the complainant is not restricted to merely seeking the addition of offences within the existing state case but may pursue a private complaint to address their grievances regarding the investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a complainant file a private complaint if they are dissatisfied with the police investigation?
  • Does the framing of a charge in a state-led criminal case bar the filing of a private complaint by the complainant?
  • Is a Magistrate empowered to dismiss a private complaint solely because the state case has reached the stage of prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Malik vs Learned Additional Sessions Judge and 7 others2021 PLJ Lahore 386 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Hussain vs Zahoor Ul Hassan2021 SCMR 431, 2022 PSC 286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-14
  specific performanceconsent decreediscretionary reliefextension of timeappeal maintainabilitySection 96(3) CPCSection 22 Specific Relief Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a suit for specific performance decreed upon a consent order requiring the respondent to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.15.2 Million within 30 days. Instead of depositing the amount or seeking time from the Trial Court, the respondent filed an appeal challenging the decree on merits. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal but granted 15 days' extension to make the deposit, which the respondent complied with after nine years from the agreed date under the sale agreement. The High Court dismissed the appellant's revision petition. The Supreme Court examined whether the lower courts rightly exercised judicial discretion under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, and whether an appeal lay against a consent decree under Section 96(3) CPC. The Supreme Court held that relief of specific performance is discretionary and not mandatory. Under Section 96(3) CPC, no appeal lies from a consent decree unless falling under Order XLIII, Rule 1(m) CPC. The respondent's appeal was unmaintainable and merely filed to gain time. The Court set aside the impugned judgments and dismissed the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Is a consent decree appealable on merits under Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Under what circumstances can an order recording or refusing to record a compromise or consent decree be appealed under Order XLIII, Rule 1(m) of the CPC?
  • Is the remedy of specific performance under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 a mandatory right or a discretionary relief?
  • Can an Appellate Court extend time for depositing balance consideration in a suit for specific performance where the appeal against a consent decree was unmaintainable and filed merely to gain time?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz etc vs Muhammad Sharif etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1171 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-11
  Illegal Dispossession Actjoint propertyco-sharerspartition of landcriminal appealacquittalpossession dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complainants alleged that the appellants forcibly dispossessed them of suit land, despite the complainants having obtained possession through a revenue court decree. The core legal question was whether the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, could be invoked to penalize co-owners for dispossession when the suit property remains part of an unpartitioned joint Khata. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable because the evidence established that the land in dispute was joint property between the parties and had not been legally partitioned. The Court emphasized that the Illegal Dispossession Act is not intended to resolve disputes between co-sharers where possession is contested within an unpartitioned joint holding. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, ruling that the trial court's judgment resulted from a misreading and non-reading of evidence regarding the status of the land as joint property.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 be invoked to penalize co-owners for dispossession of land that remains part of an unpartitioned joint Khata?
  • Is a conviction under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 sustainable where the property in dispute has not been legally partitioned between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz etc vs Hassan Dad etc2021 CLC 1230, 2021 [M] C L R 1315, 2021 PHC 40 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and others vs Mst. Badshah Begum and others2021 P SC 880, 2021 SCMR 605, 2021 SCP 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-24
  specific performanceoral agreementpleadingsvoid for uncertaintyevidence in rebuttalSection 53A Transfer of Property Actlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose from a High Court judgment in revision, which set aside an Additional District Judge's decree and restored the Civil Judge's dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell land. The primary legal issue was whether a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement can succeed when the plaint fails to specify material particulars of the underlying oral agreement and the subject land. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision and refused leave to appeal. The Court held that under Order VI Rules 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Appendix A Forms 47 and 48, a plaint seeking specific performance must clearly describe the agreement and the immovable property. Omitting these essential particulars renders the contract void for uncertainty under Section 29 of the Contract Act, 1872 and unenforceable under Section 21(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Additionally, primary evidence cannot be adduced as rebuttal evidence under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC, and protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is unavailable if possession pursuant to the contract is unproven.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for specific performance maintainable when the plaint fails to specify the particulars of the agreement and the description of the land?
  • Does an agreement to sell immovable property become void for uncertainty under Section 29 of the Contract Act, 1872 if the subject land is not described?
  • Can primary evidence supporting a plaintiff's claim be categorized and produced as rebuttal evidence under Order XVIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Can a party invoke Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 without establishing that possession was obtained pursuant to the sale agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and 6 others vs Province Of Sindh through Chief2021 YLR 462 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and 2 others vs Province Of Punjab, through Home2021 PLC (C.S.) 705 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-25
  regularization of servicecontract employeesconstitutional jurisdictionmaster and servantright to livelihooddiscriminatory treatmentpolice constables
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses a set of consolidated writ petitions filed by ex-Army personnel who were appointed as Constables on a contract basis in the Punjab Police and sought regularization of their services pursuant to a government notification dated 01.03.2013. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of constitutional petitions by contractual employees, whether acceptance of contract terms bars an employee from seeking regularization, and whether the petitioners were entitled to regularization under the 2013 policy. The court held that contract employees can invoke constitutional jurisdiction for service matters, that unequal bargaining power in signing contracts does not bar employees from seeking regularization, and that denying the benefit of the regularization policy to the petitioners while regularizing their peers was discriminatory. The court allowed the petitions, reinstated the petitioners, and directed the authorities to consider their cases for regularization in accordance with the 2013 policy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a contract employee can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of grievances regarding the terms and conditions of service?
  • Does the signing of a contract containing a clause barring regularization estop an employee from seeking regular employment when there is an inequality of bargaining position?
  • Whether employees of a particular department can be deprived of the benefit of a general government regularization notification without explicit exclusion in the policy?
  • Does the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include the right to livelihood?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Razzaq vs Surayya Bibi and 6 others2021 PLD Lahore 790, 2022 [M] CLR 457 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1341 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-24
  post-arrest bailaerial firingvicarious liabilityfurther inquirycommon object
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this petition, the petitioner Muhammad Rashid sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 289 dated 02.08.2020 registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Muhammad Pur, District Rajanpur. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where no specific overt act of causing injury or death was attributed to him except aerial firing, making his case one of further inquiry. The Lahore High Court allowed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner's culpability and the application of vicarious liability required further inquiry after recording evidence, especially as he was a previous non-convict and no longer required for investigation. The key principle laid down is that where no overt act is attributed to an accused other than aerial firing and the question of vicarious liability requires determination at trial, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused to whom no overt act is attributed except aerial firing is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the question of vicarious liability in a murder case warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Is a previous non-convict entitled to bail when no longer required for police investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Siddiqui vs Province of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 1104, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1216 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-15
  departmental promotion committeeKWSBadministrative notificationGeneral Clauses Actboard resolutionjudicial reviewservice lawstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a notification issued by the Karachi Water & Sewerage Board (KWSB) constituting departmental promotion and selection committees. The petitioner alleged the notification was illegal, citing conflicts with cabinet decisions, prior board resolutions, and the General Clauses Act 1897, while also arguing that the inclusion of internal members in the committees was unconstitutional. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to produce evidence of any conflicting cabinet decision. The Court ruled that the Board retains the authority to modify its own previous resolutions and that the notification was a valid exercise of that power. Furthermore, the Court held that administrative notifications implementing board resolutions do not require publication in the official gazette under the General Clauses Act 1897 unless the parent statute explicitly mandates it. Finally, the Court rejected the argument against internal members serving on promotion committees, noting that such composition is standard practice provided conflict of interest safeguards are in place.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inclusion of internal members in a departmental promotion committee violate the constitutional scheme?
  • Can a statutory board amend or modify its previous resolutions regarding the constitution of selection committees?
  • Is an administrative notification implementing a board resolution required to be published in the official gazette under the General Clauses Act 1897?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the petitioner to produce a cabinet decision alleged to be violated by an administrative notification?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Khan vs Shakil Akhtar Khan, etc2021 IHC 104 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid and another vs The State2022 YLR 119 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-20
  terrorismmurdersole eye-witnessidentification paradeocular evidencemedical evidencesentencing discretiondeath penalty commutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the convictions and death sentences of two appellants for the murder of a political activist and related terrorism offenses, as handed down by an Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of a sole eye-witness, the impact of delayed FIR registration, the validity of the identification parade, and the weight of ocular versus medical evidence. The Sindh High Court upheld the convictions, finding the eye-witness testimony credible and corroborated by medical evidence regarding the proximity of the gunshot. The Court affirmed that while medical evidence is opinionative, ocular evidence takes primacy when trustworthy. However, exercising judicial caution regarding sentencing, the Court commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that where judges entertain some doubt regarding the appropriateness of the death penalty, even if insufficient for acquittal, judicial caution mandates awarding the alternative sentence of life imprisonment to ensure justice with mercy, particularly when mitigating circumstances exist. The Court emphasized that sentencing requires deep judicial reflection on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of a sole eye-witness?
  • Does ocular evidence take precedence over medical evidence in criminal trials when there is a conflict?
  • Under what circumstances should a court commute a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is a delay in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case if the delay is adequately explained?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasheed, etc vs Government Of The Punjab through Secretary2021 PLJ Lahore 191 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State2021 PLJ SC (Cr.C. ) 225, 2021 SCMR 655 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-12
  Qatl-i-amdocular accountcriminal appealmedical evidencebenefit of doubtprosecution discrepanciesacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the petitioner for Qatl-i-amd, originally sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether a conviction can be sustained when the prosecution's ocular account is partially disbelieved, the motive is excluded, and significant discrepancies exist regarding the medical evidence and the identity of those who transported the deceased to the hospital. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was undermined by material inconsistencies, including the unexplained presence of individuals other than those mentioned in the crime report, the payment of medical fees in a police case, and the failure to account for injuries sustained by a co-accused. The Court established that where the prosecution casts a wider net by implicating innocent proxies and fails to provide a transparent account of the incident's genesis, it becomes unsafe to maintain a conviction based on disputed ocular evidence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted due to the inherent uncertainty and lack of integrity in the prosecution's narrative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for Qatl-i-amd be sustained when the prosecution's ocular account is partially disbelieved and the motive is excluded?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to explain the presence of individuals not mentioned in the crime report undermine the credibility of the entire case?
  • Is it safe to maintain a conviction when the prosecution has cast a wider net by implicating innocent proxies?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State, etc2021 SCP 372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-08
  post-arrest bailcase diaryzimnistatement of witnessesfurther inquirycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court denying post-arrest bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 325/2020 registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether statements of witnesses recorded within the case diary (zimni) under section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 lose their character as statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that embodying a witness's statement in the case diary instead of recording it separately is at best a procedural lapse by the Investigating Officer, and the statement does not lose its character as a statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down the principle that if an Investigating Officer records a witness statement while compiling the case diary, such statement continues to qualify as a statement under section 161, and further held that where the Investigating Officer states the accused was present at the site but not involved in the commission of the offence or armed with a weapon, sufficient grounds for further inquiry are made out, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a witness statement recorded by an Investigating Officer in the case diary lose its character as a statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal distinction between statements recorded under section 161 and information or opinions formed under section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the presence of an accused at the crime scene without a weapon or active involvement, as stated by the Investigating Officer, constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State and others2021 SCMR 1914, 2021 SCP 372, PLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 330, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 94 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-08
  post-arrest bailcase diaryzimniwitness statementprocedural lapsefurther inquirymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the High Court's denial of post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether statements of independent witnesses exonerating the petitioner, which were recorded by the Investigating Officer within the case diary (zimni) rather than separately, could be considered as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the purposes of bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that recording a witness statement in the case diary instead of separately is merely a procedural lapse by the Investigating Officer and does not strip the statement of its character under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Distinguishing between Sections 161 and 172, the Court ruled that while the latter covers the investigator's own opinions and actions, any witness statements embedded therein remain Section 161 statements. Finding sufficient grounds for further inquiry, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does a witness statement recorded by an investigating officer in a case diary under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 lose its character as a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal distinction between the contents of a statement under Section 161 and a case diary under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a procedural lapse by an investigating officer in recording a witness statement within a case diary prevent the court from considering that statement for the purpose of granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 184 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-03
  pre-arrest bailtheftfurther inquirydelay in FIRliberty of the subjectcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, who was accused of theft under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the significant delay in lodging the FIR and the nature of the evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought. The Court observed that the three-month delay in filing the crime report remained unexplained, the occurrence was unseen, and the FIR lacked details regarding the transportation of the stolen property. Consequently, the Court determined that the case against the petitioner fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that in pre-arrest bail matters, the Court may evaluate the facts and circumstances, including potential mala fides and the merits of the case, to determine if the petitioner's liberty should be protected pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court evaluate the merits of a case when deciding on a petition for pre-arrest bail?
  • Does an unexplained three-month delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to pre-arrest bail when the prosecution fails to provide details regarding the transportation of allegedly stolen property in an unseen occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs State and two others2021 P Cr. L J 1362, 2021 PHC 50 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-26
  acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocenceocular accountmedical evidenceforensic reportadverse inferencecriminal appealQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of respondents in a murder case under Sections 302/324/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to overcome the double presumption of innocence attached to an acquittal. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court’s judgment was well-reasoned and based on the record. The Court established that an acquittal cannot be reversed unless the findings are arbitrary or perverse. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove its case due to material contradictions: the ocular account conflicted with medical evidence regarding the firing distance, and the forensic report, indicating the use of a single weapon, contradicted the complainant’s allegation of two shooters. Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution withheld key independent witnesses, invoking an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the Court reaffirmed that even a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal, and the prosecution failed to establish the motive or the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses at the crime scene.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal judgment carry a double presumption of innocence that requires extraordinary circumstances to overturn?
  • Can a court draw an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when the prosecution fails to produce the best available evidence?
  • Does a conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding the distance of fire create reasonable doubt sufficient for acquittal?
  • Is a forensic report indicating the use of a single weapon sufficient to discredit an ocular account alleging multiple shooters?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Nangar & Others2021 SHC 1012 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan through Superintendent of Central Jail, Karachi vs The State2021 YLR 409 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-02
  fatal accidentfake driving licencevehicle owner liabilityabetmentrash and negligent drivingcommercial vehiclefaulty investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing the death of a pedestrian while driving a water tanker rashly and negligently with a fake driving licence. The core legal question concerned the liability and criminal culpability of the vehicle's owner who permitted an unlicensed driver to operate a commercial vehicle without mandatory insurance. The Sindh High Court held that the owner of a vehicle who allows an unlicensed person to drive commits abetment under Section 107 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, falling under Section 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and must be prosecuted as a co-accused alongside the driver. The court laid down the principle that vehicle owners are legally responsible under Section 5 of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965 to ensure drivers possess valid licences, and failure to do so renders them liable as abettors in fatal traffic accident cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the owner of a motor vehicle can be prosecuted as an abettor when a fatal accident is caused by a driver operating the vehicle with a fake or invalid licence?
  • Does permitting an unlicensed person to drive a vehicle constitute abetment under Section 107 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the liability of a vehicle owner who fails to comply with Section 3 and Section 5 of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Kolachi vs Province Of Sindh and others2021 SHC 1252 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and 4 others vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2021 CLC 1335 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan alias Waqas alias Papu vs State and another2021 PLJ Cr.C (Lahore) 828 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-21
  narcotic substanceschemical examiner reportfull protocolscriminal appealacquittalrecovery contradictionadmissibility of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the Appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 1050 grams of charas. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically regarding unexplained overwriting in the complaint and FIR, and the admissibility and validity of the Chemical Examiner's report. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was rendered dubious due to material contradictions between the complainant and the investigating officer regarding the alteration of the quantity of contraband in the official record. Furthermore, the Court held that the Chemical Examiner's report was legally deficient because it failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, which necessitates the inclusion of full testing protocols. Additionally, the Court ruled that a photocopy of a Chemical Examiner's report is inadmissible without secondary evidence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the Appellant was acquitted of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to include full testing protocols in a Chemical Examiner's report render it inconclusive and unreliable under Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Is a photocopy of a Chemical Examiner's report admissible in evidence without the production of the original or secondary evidence?
  • Do material contradictions in the prosecution's record regarding the quantity of recovered contraband create reasonable doubt sufficient for acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rameez and 2 others vs The State and another2021 YLR 1173 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-28
  Qatl-e-Amdplea of alibiappreciation of evidencecriminal appealsentence enhancementocular accountdefense evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and revision arose from the conviction of the appellants for the murder of the deceased and attempted murder of the complainant under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellants challenged their conviction, arguing discrepancies in evidence and asserting a plea of alibi, supported by a confession from a third party, Naveed Iqbal, who claimed to have committed the crime. The complainant sought an enhancement of the sentence. The Islamabad High Court examined the ocular evidence, medical reports, and the defense's version. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt through consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborating evidence. Conversely, the Court rejected the defense's version as an afterthought, noting that the failure to produce the allegedly injured party, Touheed Iqbal, severely undermined the credibility of the defense. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and life imprisonment, and dismissed the revision petition, finding no grounds for sentence enhancement. The judgment reaffirmed that a defense plea lacking independent corroboration and failing to produce material witnesses cannot override credible prosecution evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the defense to produce a material witness mentioned in their version of events create an adverse inference under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the defense presents a confession by a third party that lacks independent corroboration?
  • Is a plea of alibi sufficient to overturn a conviction if it is not supported by credible evidence and is contradicted by the prosecution's ocular account?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rahim and another vs Abdul Samad and others2021 CLC 1357 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique, etc vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1081 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-02
  murderblood feudjoint roleanti-terrorism actocular evidencemedical corroborationballistic reportsentence mitigationappeal against acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for murder and other offences following a fatal shooting incident resulting from a blood feud. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence, the applicability of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to a crime arising from personal enmity, and the sustainability of convictions based on a joint role without specific attribution of fatal shots. The Lahore High Court held that while the ocular account of injured witnesses corroborated by medical evidence and ballistic reports proved the appellants' participation in the homicidal deaths beyond reasonable doubt, the offense fell outside the scope of anti-terrorism laws as it stemmed from private enmity rather than generating terror within the meaning of the statute. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, converted the death sentences to imprisonment for life under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 due to the joint attribution of roles, and additionally set aside the acquittal of a co-accused, convicting him similarly. The key principle laid down is that crimes rooted in personal blood feuds, despite occurring in public and causing multiple casualties, do not attract anti-terrorism legislation unless accompanied by the specific design or purpose specified in the statute.

  Questions settled

  • Does a murder committed in a public place as a result of a longstanding personal blood feud attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Whether the assignment of a joint role to multiple accused persons for causing firearm injuries without attributing a specific fatal shot to an individual warrants the mitigation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Can the positive report of a Ballistic Expert regarding recovered weapons provide sufficient corroboration to the testimony of injured eye-witnesses?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court reverse an acquittal and convict a co-accused whose role was identical to that of convicted co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs WAPDA and others2021 IHC 322 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 553 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-28
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtlast seen evidencewajtakkarmurderacquittal of co-accusedindependent corroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge Khushab, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question revolves around whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—including last seen, wajtakkar, motive, medical evidence, and the recovery of a cycle—was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when co-accused facing the same trial and evidence had already been acquitted. The Lahore High Court held that the circumstantial evidence failed to form an unbroken chain pointing solely to the guilt of the appellant, that material improvements and contradictions rendered the witness testimonies unreliable, and that no independent corroboration existed to sustain a conviction when the common set of evidence had been disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused. The court laid down the principle that in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must form a continuous chain connecting the accused to the crime without missing links, and that when evidence is rejected against co-accused, independent corroboration on material particulars is mandatory to sustain a conviction against the remaining accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether circumstantial evidence can sustain a conviction when the links in the chain of evidence are missing?
  • Can evidence disbelieved against acquitted co-accused be used to convict another accused without independent corroboration on material particulars?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The Province of Sindh & 02 others2021 SHC 384 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 960 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-07
  murderrobberyidentification paradechance witnessbenefit of doubtforensic evidencecriminal appealdishonest improvement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder and robbery under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of chance witnesses, the evidentiary value of an identification parade where no specific role was attributed to the accused, and the impact of dishonest improvements in witness testimony. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found the ocular account inconsistent with medical evidence and noted that the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses without justification for their presence. Furthermore, the identification parade was deemed legally insignificant because the witnesses failed to attribute a specific role to the appellant during the proceedings, and subsequent improvements in court were rejected as dishonest. Additionally, the forensic evidence was disregarded due to the failure to prove the safe transmission of the weapon. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and extended him the benefit of the doubt, establishing that identification proceedings lacking specific role attribution and testimony tainted by dishonest improvements are insufficient to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an identification parade lose its legal significance if the witnesses fail to attribute a specific role to the accused during the proceedings?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account is contradicted by the medical evidence regarding the nature of the injury?
  • What is the legal consequence of dishonest improvements made by witnesses in their court statements to strengthen the prosecution's case?
  • Is the forensic report reliable if the prosecution fails to produce the official responsible for the safe transmission of the crime weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Rabbani vs Deputy Post-Master General Southern2021 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 36 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service lawpromotionsupersessiondepartmental promotion committeeminor penaltycivil servantdeferment
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal concerns the supersession of the appellant, an Assistant Superintendent Post Offices (BS-14), for promotion to BS-16. The appellant challenged his supersession by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), which cited minor penalties imposed on him as the reason for denial, relying on Rule 210(2) of the Post Office Manual Vol-IV. The core legal question was whether the imposition of minor penalties constitutes a valid legal ground to supersede a civil servant for promotion, given conflicting Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal held that the DPC's decision to supersede the appellant based solely on minor penalties was unsustainable and contrary to established Supreme Court rulings. The Tribunal affirmed that minor penalties should not bar promotion. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the specific supersession order dated 29.10.2015, converted it into deferment, and directed the DPC to reconsider the appellant’s case for promotion in accordance with the law. The judgment reinforces the principle that departmental rules cannot override the binding dictum of the Supreme Court regarding the eligibility of civil servants for promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant be denied promotion solely on the basis of minor penalties?
  • Does a departmental rule barring promotion due to minor penalties prevail over Supreme Court precedents?
  • Can a supersession based on minor penalties be converted into deferment by the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Qureshi vs Govt. of Sindh and Others2021 SHC 602 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique etc vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1430 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-02
  criminal appealmurderattempted murderanti-terrorism actprevious enmityocular evidencemedical evidenceballistic reportacquittalconvictionlife imprisonmentdeath sentence commutationjoint role
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses criminal appeals against conviction, a capital sentence reference, and an appeal against acquittal arising from a murderous assault. The appellants, Muhammad Rafique and Muhammad Asif, were convicted and sentenced to death for multiple murders and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved the applicability of the Anti-Terrorism Act in cases of previous enmity, the consistency of ocular and medical evidence, and the propriety of acquitting a co-accused with an identical role. The Lahore High Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside convictions and sentences under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, on the grounds that previous enmity as a motive does not automatically attract its provisions. The death sentences under Section 302(b), PPC were converted to life imprisonment due to the joint role of multiple accused. The court also set aside the acquittal of co-accused Muhammad Ashraf, convicting him for murder and attempted murder, finding no material to differentiate his role from the convicted accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a case motivated by previous enmity attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Is a minor discrepancy in the time of death in medical evidence sufficient to discredit confidence-inspiring ocular account?
  • Can an acquittal based on an Investigating Officer's finding of innocence be set aside if the evidence on record proves guilt?
  • Whether a joint role of multiple accused in a murder case can be a mitigating factor for awarding a lesser sentence?
  • Is the testimony of injured eye-witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence and ballistic reports, considered trustworthy and confidence-inspiring?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Awan vs The Land Acquisition Collector, National2021 MLD 766 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and another vs Syed Warand Ali Shah and others2021 SCP 190, 2021 SCMR 1068, 2022 PSC 294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-22
  land disputetitle to propertysale deedmutationoral saledeclaration suitcancellation of mutationpossessionpermanent injunctionmesne profitslimitationacquiescencenon-joinder of partiesadverse inferenceburden of proofLand Acquisition Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court concerned a dispute over land title, seeking declaration, cancellation of mutation, possession, permanent injunction, and mesne profits. The plaintiff-respondent claimed title through a registered sale deed from his mother in 1978, while the petitioners (defendants) asserted title based on an oral sale and mutation from the same ancestor in 1971, followed by continuous possession, alienations, and land acquisition proceedings where they received compensation. The core legal questions revolved around the validity of the competing claims, the plaintiff's failure to prove his title, and the suit's maintainability given the plaintiff's long silence and acquiescence to significant developments on the land. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the concurrent findings of the three lower courts. It held that the plaintiff failed to prove his case with valid and reliable evidence, did not appear as his own witness, and his suit was barred by time due to his prolonged silence and acquiescence over four decades, during which the land was continuously alienated, developed, and acquired without objection. The Court emphasized that pleadings cannot be equated with evidence and a claimant must prove their case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff obtain a declaration of ownership and cancellation of an earlier mutation without proving their own valid title through reliable evidence?
  • What is the effect of a plaintiff's failure to appear as their own witness when the facts pleaded are within their personal knowledge?
  • Can a suit for declaration and cancellation of mutation be dismissed if it is found to be barred by time due to the plaintiff's long silence and acquiescence to continuous changes and developments on the suit land?
  • Whether pleadings alone are sufficient to prove a case without valid and reliable oral and documentary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique alias Mamun vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1447 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-09
  pre-arrest baildelay in FIRstatement of co-accusedfurther inquirycriminal cases involvement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition seeks pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 337/2018 registered under Section 380, PPC at Police Station Alpa, District Multan. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail where the FIR was lodged with a delay of three years, the occurrence was unseen, and the primary incriminating material against the petitioner is the statement of a co-accused. The court held that the statement of the co-accused is inadmissible, the unexplained delay casts doubt on the prosecution's version, and mere involvement in other criminal cases does not disentitle an accused to bail in the absence of a conviction, thereby making the case one of further inquiry. The petition was consequently allowed and the pre-arrest bail confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of three years in lodging the FIR reflects on the veracity of the prosecution version in a bail application?
  • Is the statement of a co-accused implicating the petitioner admissible in evidence for the purpose of denying bail?
  • Does mere involvement in other criminal cases disentitle an accused to the concession of bail in the absence of a previous conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Messrs Ard Associates and 10 others2021 YLR 657 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Hussain and another2021 LHC 6963, 2022 MLD 939 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Abdul Aziz2021 SCP 336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-05-18
  pre-emptionwaiver of rightcollusive suitagricultural landLand Reforms Regulation 1972burden of proofcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil appeals arising from pre-emption suits filed by the respondent against the appellant regarding the sale of agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the respondent, the vendor's son, possessed a valid superior right of pre-emption, or if the suit was a collusive, mala fide attempt to obstruct the vendee, given the respondent's conduct and the family's involvement in the transaction. The Supreme Court held that the respondent’s conduct, including his instrumental role in the bargain and the subsequent use of sale proceeds to purchase other property, constituted a clear waiver of his pre-emption rights. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a pre-emptor must explicitly assert and prove a superior right of pre-emption in testimony, which the respondent failed to do. The Court declined to decide the case on hyper-technical procedural grounds regarding the transfer of suits between the Collector and Civil Court, opting instead to resolve the matter on merits. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and dismissed the pre-emption suits, characterizing pre-emption as a piratory right prone to abuse.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a pre-emptor to explicitly testify regarding their superior right of pre-emption render the claim fatal?
  • Can conduct such as facilitating a sale or utilizing sale proceeds to purchase other property constitute a waiver of the right of pre-emption?
  • Is a suit for pre-emption based on a collusive arrangement between a vendor and their relative maintainable under the law?
  • Does the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit apply to procedural irregularities regarding the transfer of suits between a Collector and a Civil Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and others vs The State & another2021 PHC 64, 2024 MLD 521 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and another vs Abdul Aziz2021 SCMR 1805, 2021 SCP 336, 2022 PSC 187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-05-18
  pre-emptionwaiver of pre-emption rightLand Reforms Regulations 1972collusive saleactus curiae neminem gravabitcross-examination admissionsuperior right of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals arose out of pre-emption suits instituted in 1974 by the respondent challenging sales made by his father. The proceedings involved protracted procedural history, including transfers between the Civil Court and the Collector under Paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 (MLR 115). The Supreme Court examined procedural irregularities regarding jurisdiction, waiver of pre-emption rights through collusion and participation in the sale, and evidentiary requirements under pre-emption law. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the courts below, and dismissed the pre-emption suits with costs. The Court held that despite jurisdictional missteps, parties were protected by the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit. On the merits, the Court laid down that failure to cross-examine a witness on material points amounts to an admission of those facts. It established that pre-emption is a piratory right and where a son collaborates in a sale by his father, uses the sale proceeds, and fails to cross-examine key witnesses, waiver is proved. Furthermore, an essential prerequisite for a pre-emption decree is that the plaintiff must explicitly testify in evidence that he possesses a superior right of pre-emption over the vendee.

  Questions settled

  • Does a party suffer prejudice when procedural transfers between courts and revenue authorities cause prolonged delay under the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit?
  • What is the effect of failing to cross-examine a witness on a material statement in a civil proceeding?
  • Can a pre-emption suit succeed if the plaintiff fails to explicitly state in his oral evidence that he possesses a superior right of pre-emption qua the vendee?
  • Does active participation in a sale transaction and utilization of its consideration money constitute waiver of the right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qurban s/o Mohammad Hussain r/o Khadhala Tehsil Barnala2021 SC AJK 6 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qayyum vs Habib Bank Limited2021 PLJ Lahore 144 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim, etc vs The State, etc2021 P SC (Crl.) 819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-11
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyalternate medicinesregulatory frameworktherapeutic goodsDrugs Act 1976DRAP Act 2012suo motu
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a bail application filed by petitioners Muhammad Qasim and Khurram Shahzad, who were accused of manufacturing, stocking, and selling drugs and therapeutic goods in violation of the Drugs Act, 1976 and the DRAP Act, 2012. During the proceedings, the Court expressed significant concern regarding the lack of a clear regulatory framework for alternate medicines in Pakistan, noting that relevant authorities were unable to clarify how such products are monitored or inspected. Consequently, the Court directed the initiation of a separate Suo Motu case to address the regulation of alternate medicines to protect public health. Regarding the merits of the bail petition, the Court observed that the principal accused in the case had already been granted bail. Applying the principle of consistency, the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the same relief. The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, granting bail to the petitioners subject to the furnishing of solvent surety bonds, while emphasizing that the observations made were tentative and should not influence the trial court's final decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply to co-accused when the principal accused has already been granted bail?
  • Are observations made by the Supreme Court during bail proceedings binding on the trial court during the final adjudication of the case?
  • Can a bail petition be converted into an appeal by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs The State2021 MLD 1263 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-16
  criminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubtchance witnessespost-mortem delayforensic evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Qasim, for the murder of his sister-in-law, Shamsa Kanwal, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically the testimony of chance witnesses and the integrity of the forensic recovery. The Lahore High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene of the crime, noting they were chance witnesses who could not justify their presence. Furthermore, the Court observed a significant delay in the post-mortem examination, suggesting the fabrication of evidence and the procurement of witnesses. Additionally, the Court discarded the forensic report due to the suspicious timing of the recovery and dispatch of the crime weapon and empty casing. Consequently, the Court held that these factors created reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt. The conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the murder reference was answered in the negative, affirming the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in conducting a post-mortem examination create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt?
  • Can a forensic report be discarded if the crime weapon and empty casing were received by the forensic agency simultaneously after a significant delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs State2021 PLJ Cr.C (Lahore) 838 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-16
  murderdeath sentencechance witnessbenefit of the doubtdelayed post-mortemcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Muhammad Qasim, challenged his conviction and sentence of death under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 along with a murder reference stemming from FIR No. 137 dated 19.06.2014. The Lahore High Court examined whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through eye-witness testimony, medical evidence, and weapon recovery. The Court held that the eye-witnesses were uncorroborated chance witnesses who failed to establish their presence at the scene, the post-mortem examination was subject to unexplained delay suggestive of concoction, and the weapon recovery and forensic report were unreliable. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, the appellant was acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt, and the murder reference was answered in the negative. The key principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of the accused entitles them to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Are chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene is unestablished considered reliable for a murder conviction?
  • Does a delay in conducting the post-mortem examination raise a strong possibility of police fabrication and planting of witnesses?
  • Can an accused be acquitted on the basis of a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim Tareen vs Abdul Karim Baryalai and 3 others2021 PLD Balochistan 116 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim and others vs The State and others2021 SCMR 1344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-11
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencydrugs actalternate medicinessuo motutherapeutic goods
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving offenses under the Drugs Act, 1976, the DRAP Act, 2012, and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the unauthorized manufacturing, stocking, and selling of drugs and therapeutic goods. The core legal question addressed is whether the petitioners are entitled to bail on the basis of the rule of consistency, given that the principal accused had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting bail to the petitioners based on the rule of consistency since they were on a better footing than the co-accused already released. Additionally, the Court initiated a separate suo motu case regarding the regulatory framework for alternate medicines and their dispensation. The key principle laid down is that where a co-accused or principal accused has been granted bail, other accused persons standing on an equal or better footing are entitled to bail under the rule of consistency.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person is entitled to post-arrest bail under the rule of consistency when the principal accused has already been conceded bail?
  • Can a criminal petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal and allowed for the grant of bail?
  • What constitutes the regulatory framework for alternate medicines and their dispensation under the DRAP Act, 2012 and the Drugs Act, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qaim vs Muhammad Wali Alias Bhutto and 4 others2021 YLR 2132 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-21
  hurtTazir imprisonmentDamanfirst offendercriminal revisionconstitutional petitionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal revision petition and a constitutional petition challenging the concurrent judgments of the lower courts whereby the petitioners were convicted under Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing hurt and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment along with payment of Daman. The core legal questions related to the sustainability of the conviction based on ocular and medical evidence and the legality of awarding imprisonment by way of Tazir under Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to first-time offenders. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence. However, following the principles settled by the superior courts, the High Court held that since the convicts were first offenders and not hardened criminals or involved in honor crimes, the sentence of imprisonment by way of Tazir could not be sustained under Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court accordingly set aside the sentence of imprisonment while maintaining the conviction and restoring the original Daman amount.

  Questions settled

  • Whether imprisonment by way of Tazir can be awarded for an offence of hurt under Chapter XVI of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the accused is a first offender and not a previous convict or hardened criminal?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and appellate court regarding the conviction for hurt be interfered with when ocular testimony is corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Whether the revisional court is justified in enhancing the quantum of Daman awarded by the trial court without strong grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qadir Khan s/o Muhammad Ayub Khan, r/o Chothala, Tehsil2021 KLR Revenue Cases 99, 2021 SC AJK 24, 2021 PSC 1365, PLJ 2022 SC · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Qadir Khan and others vs Muhammad Amjad Khan and others2022 PLC (C.S.) 935 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-07-02
  service appealwrit petitionnon-joinder of necessary partyselection committeeappointmentmerit list
  Summary & questions settled

  The titled appeals by leave of the court challenged a judgment of the High Court whereby a writ petition filed by respondent No.1 was accepted, setting aside the appointment order of appellant Muhammad Qadir Khan as a Junior Teacher and directing the official respondents to appoint respondent No.1 instead. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir was whether a writ petition challenging an appointment made on the recommendations of a selection committee is maintainable and capable of issuing an effective writ when the selection committee is not impleaded as a necessary party. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that a writ petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of a necessary party when the impugned order is based on recommendations of a selection committee which was not arrayed as a respondent. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of a necessary party such as the selection committee, no effective writ can be issued, rendering the constitutional petition liable to dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an appointment made upon the recommendations of a selection committee without impleading the selection committee as a party?
  • Can an effective writ be issued in the absence of a necessary party in service matters?
  • Does the non-joinder of a necessary party render a constitutional writ petition liable to dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Pervaiz vs The State2021 LHC 116 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-01
  criminal appealdying declarationbenefit of doubtchance witnessQatl-i-Amdocular evidenceburden of proofappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the alleged dying declaration, the credibility of ocular witnesses, and the evidentiary value of the recovery of the weapon. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the purported dying declaration to be a fabricated document, noting the deceased's physical inability to make a lucid statement and the lack of medical attestation. Furthermore, the court identified the eye-witnesses as "chance witnesses" who failed to explain their presence at the scene and whose testimony was contradicted by natural human conduct, as the assailant allegedly spared them despite being prime targets. The court reiterated the principle that the burden of proof lies solely on the prosecution and that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be maintained solely on the basis of a dying declaration that lacks medical attestation and contradicts the physical condition of the deceased?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce witnesses present at the scene of the crime warrant an adverse presumption under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the accused takes a specific defence plea?
  • Can the testimony of eye-witnesses be discarded if they are found to be 'chance witnesses' who failed to provide a plausible reason for their presence at the crime scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Owais vs Aawal Khan and another2021 P Cr. L J 1638 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-07
  exhumationpost-mortemquashment petitioncause of deathcriminal proceduremedical evidencecross-examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This quashment petition, filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenged lower court orders permitting the exhumation of a deceased person's body. The accused requested the exhumation to verify the cause of death and the weapon used, despite existing medical reports and a six-month delay. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate is empowered to order exhumation at the accused's request for academic purposes or to challenge established medical evidence. The High Court held that the impugned orders were unsustainable. It ruled that the purpose of Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is strictly to discover the cause of death when it is shrouded in mystery, not to facilitate academic inquiries or re-litigate established medical findings. The court emphasized that an accused’s proper remedy to challenge medical reports is through the cross-examination of expert witnesses during trial. Consequently, the court set aside the lower court orders, establishing that exhumation should not be ordered lightly, especially when it disrespects cultural values and the deceased, without compelling justification.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person request the exhumation of a deceased body to challenge the cause of death or weapon used?
  • Is the power of a Magistrate under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 intended for academic inquiries or to identify perpetrators?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for an accused to challenge the medical opinion regarding the cause of death?
  • Under what circumstances may a Magistrate order the disinterment of a dead body?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Noor vs Muhammad Usman and 4 others2021 PLD Balochistan 51 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nisar vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1692 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nisar vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and 6 others2021 YLR 341 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs Naara Khan and 3 others2021 CLC 1372 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs Muhammad Aslam and 3 others2022 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 21 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-06-25
  quashment of FIRinherent powers of High Courtinvestigation stageabuse of processcriminal procedurecognizable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which quashed an FIR registered under sections 322 and 109 of the Azad Penal Code (APC) regarding the suicide of the complainant's son. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to quash an FIR under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while the case is still at the investigation stage. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR. The Court reaffirmed that the registration and investigation of a cognizable offence are the exclusive domain of the police. It held that the High Court cannot assume the role of an investigating agency to evaluate evidence or determine guilt at the pre-trial stage. The principle laid down is that the inherent powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. are extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly, and cannot be used to obstruct the ordinary course of criminal procedure or as a substitute for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to quash an FIR under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while the case is still under police investigation?
  • Can the High Court assume the role of an investigating agency to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused at the pre-trial stage?
  • Is the inherent power of the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 an alternative or additional remedy to the ordinary criminal procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir Awan vs Imtiaz Fatima Rizvi and another2021 CLC 2051 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawazish Ijaz vs Imtiaz Khalid, etc2021 [M] C L R 1122 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State2021 LHC 6642, 2022 P Cr. L J 1542 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-08
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtdelay in FIRmedical evidencefirearm recoverymotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd of the deceased, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitnesses, the implications of significant unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem examination, contradictions between medical and ocular evidence regarding firearm range and injuries, and the reliability of weapon recovery and forensic reports where arrest dates are unproven. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to multiple fatal flaws, including fake eyewitnesses, lack of medical treatment and absence of bandages, unverified motive, and doubtful forensic evidence. The court laid down that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, leading to the acquittal of the appellant and the negative answer to the murder reference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem examination casts serious doubt on the presence of eyewitnesses?
  • Does a contradiction between medical evidence regarding the absence of blackening or burning and the ocular account of firing from close range undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Can a positive forensic science laboratory report and weapon recovery form the sole basis for conviction in the absence of reliable direct evidence and unproven arrest dates?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when multiple circumstances create reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the prosecution story?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State, etc2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 332, 2021 PLD Supreme Court 809, 2021 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-26
  pre-arrest bailappellate jurisdictionoriginal jurisdictionleave to appealmisconceived petitionjudicial discretionSupreme Court Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed the petitioner's pre-arrest bail application as withdrawn. The petitioner failed to identify any legal error in the High Court's order, essentially treating the Supreme Court as a forum of original jurisdiction for bail. The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between its appellate jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 and the original, concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and Court of Session under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that its appellate role is limited to correcting arbitrary, perverse, or legally flawed exercises of discretion by lower courts, not re-adjudicating bail applications de novo. Finding the petition misconceived and a waste of judicial time, the Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn and imposed costs on the petitioner under the Supreme Court Rules 1980. This judgment establishes that petitions for leave to appeal in bail matters must demonstrate specific legal errors in the lower court's reasoning rather than merely reiterating grounds for bail.

  Questions settled

  • What is the distinction between the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in bail matters and the original jurisdiction of the High Court and Court of Session under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the Supreme Court entertain a petition for leave to appeal in a bail matter where no legal error in the High Court's order is identified?
  • Is the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in bail matters concurrent with that of the High Court and Court of Session?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State and another2021 YLR 328 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-10-21
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausefurther inquiryforged invoicependency of FIRscyber crime
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by Muhammad Nawaz against the dismissal of his bail application by the Court of Sessions in a case arising from FIR No. 16 dated 11.06.2020 registered under sections 14 and 16 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, concerning a forged vehicle invoice advertised on OLX. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and when investigation was complete. The Islamabad High Court held that since the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception, and mere pendency of other FIRs does not warrant refusing bail unless resulting in conviction. The court laid down the principles that non-prohibitory offences strongly favor bail, the pendency of other unconvicted FIRs is immaterial, and a case where the origin of a forgery remains undetermined warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, leading to the acceptance of the bail petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the mere pendency of other criminal cases of a similar nature constitute a sufficient ground for the refusal of post-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the question of who actually forged the vehicle invoice remains undetermined during investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State & another2021 MLD 1126, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 784, 2021 LHC 767 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-19
  post-arrest bailqatl-bis-sababdiyatmedical negligenceprohibitory clausedouble jeopardyundertrial prisoner
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a doctor, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing qatl-bis-sabab through alleged negligence during surgery. The core legal question was whether an accused charged under Section 322 PPC is entitled to post-arrest bail considering that the punishment provided is 'Diyat' only, which does not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, nor allows for the adjustment of pre-sentence custody under Section 382-B CrPC. The court held that since Section 322 PPC does not entail a sentence of imprisonment as a primary punishment—confinement only occurring upon default in paying Diyat—incarceration of the accused as an undertrial prisoner would amount to pre-trial punishment and double jeopardy. The court laid down the principle that in offenses not entailing imprisonment, the accused is entitled to bail as of right, and prolonged pretrial detention serves no useful purpose since such period cannot be compensated under Section 382-B CrPC upon conviction. The petition was consequently allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the punishment of Diyat provided under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused charged with an offense under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 entitled to bail as of right?
  • Does Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to a conviction under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 where the only punishment is Diyat?
  • Can an accused facing a charge under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be kept in prolonged incarceration as an undertrial prisoner?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 981 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-19
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausefurther inquirybusiness transactioncriminal breach
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 993/2019 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari, concerning the dishonouring of a cheque issued in connection with a business transaction for the purchase of rice. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and involves disputed business transactions requiring further inquiry. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that since the offence carries a maximum punishment of three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and should be favoured in the absence of exceptional circumstances. The court established that mere issuance of a cheque does not constitute an offence under Section 489-F PPC unless dishonesty or discharge of a loan or financial obligation is proved, and emphasized that the penal provision cannot be used as a recovery mechanism.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the mere issuance of a cheque constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of dishonesty or repayment of a loan?
  • Can Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be utilized as a mechanism for the recovery of money?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Rani & others2021 KLR Civil Cases 177 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Muhammad Afzal2021 SHC 1192 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-06
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequecivil disputeprohibitory clausefurther enquirycriminal proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR registered under sections 489-F, 506/2, and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail where the dispute between the parties appeared to be of a civil nature and the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law. The Sindh High Court held that the case warranted further inquiry as the complainant seemingly attempted to convert a civil dispute into criminal proceedings, and offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause merit bail as a rule. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that criminal proceedings cannot be utilized to pressurize a party in what is fundamentally a civil dispute, and that bail should generally be granted when an offense falls outside the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when a criminal complaint arises out of an underlying civil dispute?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail as a rule when the alleged offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the issuance of a dishonoured cheque in connection with a disputed agreement make out a case of further inquiry at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Director General Rescue 1122 and another2021 [M] CLR 1406, 2021 KLR Civil Cases 429, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 873 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-31
  public employmentage eligibilitycut-off dateservice ruleswrit petitionrecruitment criteriaRescue 1122
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the exclusion of the petitioner from the final interview list for the post of Driver (BPS-4) in Rescue 1122, Government of the Punjab, on the grounds that he was overage by five days. The petitioner argued that since he submitted his application prior to the closing date, his age should be calculated as of the date of submission, at which point he was within the prescribed limit. The core legal question was whether the cut-off date for determining age eligibility is the date of application submission or the closing date stipulated in the advertisement. The Court held that the petitioner was ineligible, as he exceeded the upper age limit on the closing date. Relying on Rule 18(2)(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, the Court affirmed that age must be reckoned as of the last date fixed for the submission of applications. The judgment establishes that for public employment, age eligibility is strictly determined by the cut-off date fixed by service rules or the advertisement, not the individual date of application.

  Questions settled

  • Is the age eligibility of a candidate for public employment determined by the date of application submission or the closing date fixed in the advertisement?
  • Does Rule 18(2)(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 require age to be reckoned as of the closing date for applications?
  • Can a candidate claim eligibility based on their age at the time of submitting an application if they are overage by the closing date fixed for applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Khan & 2 others vs Bahadur Nawaz Khan & 17 others2021 PHC 106, 2022 CLC 202 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and others vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 118 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-02
  criminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubteyewitness credibilityimprovements in testimonydelayed statementacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder and attempt to commit murder, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of death sentences. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony containing material improvements, unexplained delay in recording statements of injured witnesses, the reliability of retracted motives, and the application of the principle of benefit of doubt. The Lahore High Court held that dishonest improvements and omissions by eyewitnesses, coupled with unexplained delays in recording statements and lack of independent corroboration following the acquittal of co-accused, shatter the prosecution's case. The court established that minor or major circumstances creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, leading to the acceptance of the appeal, setting aside of convictions, and answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether dishonest improvements and omissions in the statements of eyewitnesses shatter their credibility?
  • Does an unexplained delay in recording the statement of an injured witness render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can the same evidence disbelieved for acquitting co-accused be relied upon to convict remaining accused without independent corroboration?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when reasonable doubt exists regarding their participation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz & another vs Saddam Hussain & others2021 SHC 74 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naveed vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1114 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-07
  murderqatl-i-amdbenefit of doubtcontradiction between medical and ocular evidenceinterested witnessesweapon recoverymotivedeath sentenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Muhammad Naveed, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the qatl-i-amd of Mst. Noreen Bibi and sentencing him to death, alongside a compensation order under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involve the credibility of ocular testimony, the corroborative value of weapon recoveries, the establishment of motive, and the safety of relying on prosecution evidence in the presence of glaring contradictions with medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting material contradictions between the eyewitness accounts and the medical evidence, doubtful recoveries, and an unproved motive. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution must stand on its own legs, and multiple glaring discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, coupled with interested and inconsistent witnesses, warrant extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused, leading to his acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether glaring contradictions between the ocular version and medical evidence are sufficient to discard the testimony of eyewitnesses?
  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained solely on the basis of a disputed and weakly corroborated weapon recovery?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • What is the standard of proof required by the prosecution in criminal cases to secure a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naveed and 2 others vs VIIIth Additional District Judge, Karachi South and 2 others2021 MLD 1298 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasrullah, Prop. Mansoor & Co. Multan vs The Cir, Rto, Multan2021 P C T L R 1417 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2020-06-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir, Deputy Director (Technical) Roads BPS.18, Peshawar2021 PHC 324, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 139 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-29
  deputationpromotionservice ruleslegitimate expectationgood governancewrit jurisdictionlateral entryPeshawar Development Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenged the illegal transfer and posting of various respondents on deputation to the Peshawar Development Authority (PDA) against posts reserved for the promotion of existing employees. The core legal question was whether the executive authorities could bypass established service rules—specifically the PUDB Employees Service Rules 1978, which mandate that certain posts be filled by promotion—by inducting outsiders on deputation without demonstrating exigency or necessity. The Court held that the impugned transfers were illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of good governance and legitimate expectation. The ratio established is that discretionary powers, including those related to lateral entry or deputation, cannot be exercised in a vacuum or to the detriment of the vested rights of existing employees when the governing service rules provide a clear mechanism for promotion. The Court emphasized that in the absence of new rules under the PDA Act 2017, the existing service rules remain operative, and executive authorities must act in accordance with law, fairness, and transparency rather than on the whims of the administration.

  Questions settled

  • Can executive authorities fill posts reserved for promotion under existing service rules by inducting outsiders on deputation?
  • Do the PUDB Employees Service Rules 1978 remain operative despite the enactment of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa PDA Act 2017 if no new rules have been framed?
  • Is the exercise of discretionary power for deputation valid if it is not supported by a demonstrated exigency or the consent of the borrowing department?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under Article 199 to set aside administrative transfers that violate established service structures and deprive employees of their right to promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir vs Chairman Bank Of Punjab2021 LHC 7027 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir Shafique vs The State through Prosecutor General2021 SCP 384, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 1016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-23
  post-arrest baildishonouring a chequeprohibitory clauselibertycriminal appealSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the Lahore High Court order that declined post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dishonouring a cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where the maximum punishment for the alleged offence is three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and where the mode of payment and financial transaction details remain disputed and uncorroborated at the pre-trial stage. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The court held that liberty is a precious right, and for offences falling outside the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule while its refusal is an exception, particularly when the prosecution fails to satisfactorily establish financial transactions at the bail stage, leaving such determinations to the Trial Court after recording evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the offence carries a maximum punishment of three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  • Does a disputed financial transaction and lack of documentary proof for cash payments warrant the grant of bail pending trial?
  • Can the liberty of a person be curtailed without exceptional foundations in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseer vs The State and others2021 MLD 509 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-02
  criminal appealocular evidencemedical evidencebenefit of doubtchance witnessmurderacquittalmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder and attempted murder under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the reliability of the ocular evidence and the alleged motive. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt. The court determined that the complainant was a chance witness whose presence at the scene was doubtful, and the ocular account conflicted significantly with medical evidence regarding the nature and seat of injuries. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive. The court emphasized that when motive is alleged but not established, the prosecution must suffer the consequences. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in cases of conflict between ocular and medical evidence, medical evidence is preferred, and the benefit of the slightest doubt must always go to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an alleged motive entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Is medical evidence to be preferred over ocular testimony when there is a direct conflict between the two?
  • Can the abscondence of an accused person serve as conclusive proof of guilt in the absence of other reliable evidence?
  • Does the failure to examine an important witness lead to an adverse presumption against the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseer and others vs Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and others2021 CLC 1987 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem vs Vice-Chancellor Bolan University Of Health2021 MLD 1333 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem vs Station House Officer, Police Station Zarghoom2021 P Cr. L J 1570 · Balochistan High Court
  FIR quashmentcognizance of offencemandatory procedural requirementsfalse information to public servantnon-cognizable offenceinherent powers of High Courtlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the quashment of FIR No. 51/2020 registered under sections 325, 182, 420, and 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, initiated by a private complainant alleging that the petitioner provided false information regarding self-inflicted injuries in a prior case. The core legal question was whether a private individual has the legal standing to initiate criminal proceedings for offences under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or if such proceedings are barred by the procedural requirements of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, ruling that the proceedings were void ab initio. The court established the principle that section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 acts as a mandatory exception to the general rule that any person can set the criminal law in motion. For offences such as those under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, cognizance cannot be taken by a court unless a complaint is filed in writing by the concerned public servant or their superior. Consequently, a private complainant lacks the authority to initiate such criminal proceedings, and failure to adhere to this statutory requirement renders the resulting police investigation and FIR a nullity in the eyes of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a private person initiate criminal proceedings for an offence under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 create a mandatory bar on courts taking cognizance of certain offences without a complaint from a public servant?
  • Is an FIR registered by a private person for a non-cognizable offence without following the procedure under section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 valid?
  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR that violates mandatory statutory provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nafees and another vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 631 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-25
  narcotic possessionsafe transmissionchain of custodybenefit of doubtcriminal appealnarcotic substances actsample parcels
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under sections 9(c) and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of narcotics. The appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment by the Special Court (CNS), Islamabad. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the prosecution successfully established the safe and unbroken chain of custody for the recovered narcotic samples from the point of recovery to their receipt at the National Institute of Health (NIH) laboratory. Upon review, the Court found a significant discrepancy: while the prosecution claimed the samples were dispatched on May 16, 2018, the NIH report indicated receipt on May 17, 2018, with no explanation provided for this delay or the intervening custody. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of safe transmission. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted by extending the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in narcotic cases, establishing an unbroken, secure chain of custody is mandatory for a valid conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Is the prosecution required to establish an unbroken chain of custody for narcotic samples from the point of recovery to the laboratory?
  • Does a discrepancy between the dispatch date and the receipt date of narcotic samples at a laboratory constitute a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to prove the safe transmission of recovered narcotic samples?
  Read full judgment →