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 Bashir vs Naseem Ullah and 9 othersPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 206 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-03
  appeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocencecross-version caseocular evidencecriminal appealperversity in judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the acquittal of respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala, in a cross-version criminal case involving charges under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents was perverse, arbitrary, or capricious, thereby warranting appellate interference. The High Court examined the evidence, noting significant contradictions in the complainant's testimony, specifically the lack of corresponding holes in his clothing despite the alleged gunshot wound, and the absence of medical records from the referred hospital. Furthermore, independent witness testimony contradicted the complainant's version of events. The Court dismissed the appeal in limine, affirming the acquittal. The key principle laid down is that in an appeal against acquittal, the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence. Appellate courts are reluctant to interfere with an acquittal unless the impugned judgment is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, capricious, or patently illegal, which was not established in this case.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard for appellate interference in an order of acquittal?
  • Does an accused person enjoy a double presumption of innocence after being acquitted by a trial court?
  • Can an appeal against acquittal be dismissed in limine if the impugned judgment is not found to be perverse or arbitrary?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Muhammad Bashir2021 KLR Civil Cases 70 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Irshad Begum and two others2021 LHC 3778, 2022 YLR 313 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Baqir vs The State and another2021 SCP 422, 2022 SCMR 363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-06
  cancellation of bailpost-arrest bailabscondencecommon intentionvicarious liabilitymurderjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted by the Lahore High Court to the respondent, who was charged with murder and other offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion judicially in granting bail despite the respondent's abscondence, specific nomination in a promptly lodged FIR, and subsequent involvement in a separate murderous assault against the complainant. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was perverse, fanciful, and arbitrary, failing to account for the respondent's vicarious liability, shared common intention, and the medical evidence corroborating the ocular account. The Court emphasized that bail cancellation requires evaluating the totality of circumstances, including the accused's conduct post-incident. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and cancelled the respondent's bail, establishing that where an order granting bail ignores material facts and lacks justiciable reasoning under the criteria for further inquiry, it is unsustainable in law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that a firearm injury was inflicted on a non-vital part of the body automatically entitle an accused to bail in a murder case?
  • Can bail be cancelled if the accused absconded after the commission of the crime?
  • Is an order granting bail sustainable if it fails to consider the accused's vicarious liability and shared common intention?
  • Does the subsequent involvement of an accused in a separate criminal case against the complainant constitute a valid ground for bail cancellation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Baaz vs Halqa Putwari Muza Mathra, Peshawar and another2021 CLC 689 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azhar Ul Islam Zafar vs Pakistan Engineering Council and others2021 IHC 326 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azhar Siddique vs The Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad2021 PTD 2098 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2021-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azhar Iqbal vs The State & another2021 LHC 1214 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-21
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequefurther inquiryfinancial obligationdishonest intentionprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed by Muhammad Azhar Iqbal seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No.296 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether the issuance of a dishonoured cheque for the same alleged financial liability previously forming the subject matter of another criminal case constitutes an offence under Section 489-F without establishing dishonest intention or the fulfillment of a valid obligation, and whether the case warrants further inquiry. The court held that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the nature of the liability and the presence of dishonest intention must be determined during the trial, and consequently admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that mere issuance of a cheque without satisfying the statutory prerequisites of dishonest intention and repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation does not conclusively establish an offence under Section 489-F, making the matter one of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere issuance of a cheque without establishing dishonest intention or fulfillment of an obligation constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether multiple criminal cases for a single financial liability make a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Is alleged abscondence sufficient to disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail when the case otherwise falls within the scope of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem vs State and another2021 PLJ Cr.C (Lahore) 833 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-08
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryunlawful assemblydelay in FIRrule of consistency
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 248/2017 registered under Sections 337-A(iii), 337-F(iii), 337-L(2), 337-F(v), 337-F(vi), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Harrapa, District Sahiwal, on the charge of inflicting injuries as a member of an unlawful assembly. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 given the delayed F.I.R., lack of recovery, differing versions by the investigating agency, and the grant of bail to co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail as his case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2), noting the unexplained delay in reporting the crime, conflicting versions between the complainant and the investigating agency, absence of recoveries, and the principle of consistency with co-accused. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail may be granted when investigation reveals divergent versions of the incident and further inquiry is warranted into the guilt of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. warrants the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Does a conflict between the complainant's version and the investigating agency's findings make a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 114 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem vs Additional District Judge, Sialkot and 3 others2021 YLR 2127 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Khan vs Dr. Iqbal Hameed and 2 others2021 PLD Sindh 237 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam etc vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 737 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-09
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtocular and medical conflictacquittal of co-accusedcorroborationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to death for the qatl-i-amd of two deceased persons, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of the death sentences. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given material contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence, the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence without independent corroboration, and implausible circumstances regarding the presence of eyewitnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond shadow of doubt due to glaring conflicts in evidence and lack of corroborative material after the rejection of the same evidence against co-accused. The court laid down the principle that the benefit of a reasonable doubt must be extended to an accused as of right, and that the same evidence disbelieved against co-accused cannot sustain a conviction for remaining accused without independent corroboration, regardless of any plea taken by the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on the same evidence that has been disbelieved for acquitting co-accused without independent corroboration?
  • Does an admission or plea taken by an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cure the failure of the prosecution to prove its case?
  • Whether contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence are sufficient to create a reasonable doubt warranting acquittal?
  • What is the effect of a negative forensic report on the recovery of weapons at the pointing out of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam and 6 others vs Additional District Judge, Kasur and 292021 PLJ Lahore 376 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam and 6 others vs Additional District Judge, Kasur &2021 PLJ Lahore 274 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azad vs Malik Zahoor Ahmed2021 IHC 324 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 563 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-29
  insanity pleamental incapacitycriminal procedurede novo trialmiscarriage of justiceprocedural irregularityblasphemy
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for blasphemy. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court erred by proceeding with the trial and convicting the appellant after he had previously been declared incapable of understanding the nature of the proceedings due to insanity, without following the mandatory procedural requirements for resumption of trial. The Court held that the trial court failed to adhere to the procedure mandated under Sections 467 and 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, causing serious prejudice to the defense and resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the case was remanded for a de novo trial, contingent upon a fresh medical assessment of the appellant's mental fitness. The key principle established is that once a court determines an accused is incapable of understanding proceedings due to insanity, the trial must remain suspended until a formal, expert-backed determination of mental fitness is made, and the mandatory procedural steps for resumption must be strictly followed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court proceed with a criminal trial against an accused previously declared incapable of understanding proceedings without a fresh determination of mental fitness?
  • Is the failure to follow the procedure for resumption of trial against an insane accused curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the mandatory procedure for resuming a trial after an accused has been declared mentally unfit to stand trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs Additional Sessions Judge-VII_Justice Of Peace, Quetta and others2021 MLD 994 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub son of Muhammad Shafi, r/o Pala-hil-Khurd, Tehsil2021 SC AJK 18 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub & another vs The Member (Judicial-III), Bor, Punjab, Lahore, etc2021 MLD 2110, 2021 LHC 2018 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayoub vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 821 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-04
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelay in FIRpolice discharge reportimprovements in statementmonetary dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 920/2020 registered under sections 376 and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Haveli Lakha, District Okara, on allegations of attempting to commit zina with an 8-year-old minor. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in light of an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, material improvements in the victim's statements, a monetary dispute between the parties, and a police discharge report favoring the accused. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail, holding that the monetary dispute, the delay in reporting, and the police finding of innocence rendered the case one of further inquiry into the guilt of the accused under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in reporting the crime combined with material improvements in the victim's statements make a case for further inquiry under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the existence of a prior monetary dispute between the complainant and the accused can create a reasonable ground for false implication at the bail stage?
  • What is the evidentiary weight of an investigating officer's discharge report in favour of an accused person when considering a post-arrest bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayoub vs Ld. 8th Adj Hyd & Others2021 SHC 1018 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-26
  suspension of sentencebail pending appealIllegal Dispossession Actshort sentenceappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for suspension of sentence and release on bail pending the disposal of an appeal against a conviction under Section 3(i) and (ii) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The applicant, who had been sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine, sought bail on the grounds that the sentence was relatively short, he had already been in custody for three months, and the appeal was unlikely to be heard promptly due to heavy court pendency. The State offered no objection to the request, while the complainant opposed it. The Court observed that the applicant had enjoyed the concession of bail throughout the trial and that the appeal process would inevitably take time. Consequently, the Court held that a case for suspension of sentence was made out. Relying on established precedent, the Court suspended the operation of the impugned judgment and admitted the applicant to bail, subject to the furnishing of surety and a personal recognizance bond.

  Questions settled

  • Can a convict be released on bail pending the disposal of an appeal if the sentence is relatively short?
  • Does the heavy pendency of cases in the appellate court constitute a valid ground for suspending a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayoub Pawani vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2021 SHC 104 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayaz son of Ali Haider, r/o Qadra Gadoon, District Swabi vs2021 PHC 346 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayaz Gul vs The State2021 MLD 21 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-04
  de-sealing of case propertynarcotics casefair trialmarginal witnessrecovery memoconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenges an order of the Special Court dismissing the petitioner's request to de-seal the case property during the trial of a narcotics case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether case property can be de-sealed during the testimony of a marginal witness to the recovery memo when no such request was made when the property was exhibited during the seizing officer's statement. The Peshawar High Court held that the case property can be de-sealed in the presence of the marginal witness to the recovery memo, emphasizing that denying such a request prejudices the accused's defense and violates the right to a fair trial. The court laid down the principle that the testimony of a marginal witness is as crucial as that of the seizing officer, and an accused has an absolute right to request the de-sealing of case property in open court during the examination of relevant recovery witnesses to ensure due process and a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Can case property be de-sealed during the statement of a marginal witness of a recovery memo if no request was made when it was exhibited by the seizing officer?
  • Does the refusal to de-seal case property upon the request of the defence violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is the testimony of a marginal witness to a recovery memo considered essential alongside the testimony of the seizing officer in criminal trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Awaais Razzaq etc vs PESCO and others2021 PHC 226, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 590 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-01
  writ jurisdictionmaintainabilityservice matterscorporate entitystatutory rulessuspension grantconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, Junior Engineers at the Peshawar Electric Supply Company (PESCO), filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging an administrative decision that denied them payment of a suspension grant for a specific period following their reinstatement. The core legal question was whether employees of a corporate entity like PESCO, whose service terms are regulated by adopted rules rather than statutory regulations, can invoke the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction to redress service-related grievances. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that PESCO is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and its service rules, even if adopted from WAPDA, lack statutory force. Consequently, the Court established the principle that in the absence of a violation of statutory rules or law, an employee of a corporation or company cannot press into service the constitutional jurisdiction for seeking relief relating to the terms and conditions of their service. The petitioners were directed to seek redressal from the appropriate alternative forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee of a corporate entity invoke the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction for service-related grievances in the absence of statutory rules?
  • Do service rules adopted by a company from another organization, without being framed as statutory regulations, acquire statutory status?
  • Is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, amenable to writ jurisdiction regarding the service terms of its employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aurangzeb vs Karim Khan alias Abdul Karim Khan and others2022 SCMR 849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-02
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationQatl-i-amdjudicial discretionreasonable groundsfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a petition filed by the complainant challenging the order of the Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench, which had granted post-arrest bail to respondents charged with Qatl-i-amd under a blood feud backdrop. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its judicial discretion under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when granting bail based on a factual premise contradicted by the record. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and set aside the High Court's order, cancelling the respondents' bail. The Supreme Court held that while the grant of bail is a discretionary relief, the exercise of such discretion must be structured upon sound judicial principles and statutory parameters. Where bail is granted based on factually incorrect premises or in disregard of settled legal principles, such an order itself constitutes valid grounds for cancellation, without requiring extra strong or compelling circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Can post-arrest bail be cancelled if granted on factually incorrect premises or in disregard of settled legal principles?
  • Whether discretion in granting bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be structured upon sound judicial principles?
  • Are strong and compelling grounds strictly required to recall a bail order if the original bail grant was contrary to the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Attiq and another vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 1209 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-31
  post-arrest bailrapefurther inquirydelayed FIRmedical evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 693, registered under Section 376-II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of rape. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite the heinous nature of the alleged offence, given the evidentiary gaps and procedural delays. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, finding that the prosecution's case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court noted significant, unexplained delays in reporting the incident, the absence of medical evidence of struggle or violence, and the lack of forensic reports (DNA/semen analysis) to corroborate the allegations. Furthermore, the investigation was complete, and the petitioners were no longer required for investigative purposes. The Court established the principle that the mere heinousness of an offence does not justify refusing bail, as bail is not a form of punishment. Unjustified incarceration cannot be remedied if the accused is ultimately acquitted, whereas the trial process can address any mistaken relief granted at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the heinous nature of an offence alone justify the refusal of bail?
  • Can bail be granted when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
  • Is a case of 'further inquiry' made out under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when medical evidence fails to corroborate allegations of sexual assault?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Attiq and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 888 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-31
  post-arrest bailrapefurther inquirydelay in FIRmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  Through the instant petition, the petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 376-II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 given the inordinate delay in reporting the FIR, lack of corroborative medical evidence showing signs of struggle or violence, absence of DNA or semen analysis reports, and non-recovery of any incriminating material. The Islamabad High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail. The court held that mere heinousness of an offence is not sufficient to deny bail, that bail cannot be withheld as a punishment, and that a tentative assessment of the record revealed sufficient grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere heinousness of an offence is sufficient to deny post-arrest bail?
  • Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in reporting the FIR make out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the absence of corroborative medical evidence and DNA reports a ground for grant of bail in a rape case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Atif vs The State2021 SHC 162 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymurderdelayed FIRinconclusive medical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving the alleged murder of his wife by strangulation. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry given the circumstantial nature of the evidence, delayed FIR, and inconclusive medical board findings. The Sindh High Court held that since no eyewitnesses connected the applicant to the crime, the FIR was lodged with a three-day delay after consultation, and the medical board failed to determine the cause of death, a case for further inquiry was made out. The court consequently admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail subject to surety, laying down the principle that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, inconclusive medical evidence regarding the cause of death, and the absence of direct eyewitnesses warrant the grant of bail under the rule of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the cause of death cannot be determined by the medical board?
  • Does a delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with consultation among elders, make a case for further inquiry under Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  • Can bail be granted in a murder case where there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Atif Saeed vs Additional Sessions Judge_Ex-Officio Justice Of The Peace, Chishtian District Bahawalnagar and 3 others2021 P Cr. L J 1372 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-10
  FIR registrationJustice of Peacecognizable offencedishonoured chequesNational Accountability Ordinancedouble jeopardySection 154 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the refusal of the Justice of Peace to order the registration of FIRs under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on the premise that the accused was already in the custody of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for a separate pending reference. The core legal question was whether the pendency of a NAB reference precludes the registration of a criminal case for a distinct, non-scheduled offence arising from a separate transaction. The Court held that the Justice of Peace erred in refusing the applications. It ruled that Section 489-F is not a scheduled offence under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, and the mere pendency of a NAB reference does not bar the registration of an FIR for a separate, distinct offence. The Court affirmed the principle that the registration of an FIR is a mandatory statutory duty under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon the disclosure of a cognizable offence, and that an accused has no right of hearing at the stage of FIR registration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a reference before an Accountability Court bar the registration of an FIR for a non-scheduled offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an accused person entitled to a hearing before a Justice of Peace or a Station House Officer at the stage of FIR registration?
  • Does the registration of an FIR for a distinct offence arising from the same transaction violate the principle of double jeopardy?
  • Is the registration of an FIR mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the information discloses a cognizable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Assad Qureshi vs The State2021 SHC 994 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1714 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-21
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelayed FIRstatements under Section 164 Cr.P.C.murderabduction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 530 registered under Sections 365, 302, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kot Momin, District Sargodha. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in view of the delayed FIR, the nature of the allegations, and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting a significant delay of over two and a half months in lodging the FIR and the contradictory statements of witnesses. The petition was consequently allowed, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where eye-witnesses retract their statements or cast doubt through Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements and there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of more than two months in lodging the FIR makes the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the retraction of witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify granting post-arrest bail?
  • Can an accused be admitted to post-arrest bail when the investigation reveals no direct injury attributed to him?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Mst. Tahira Parveen2021 LHC 7515 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 1352 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam S/O Sardar Muhammad vs The State2021 SHC 538 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-28
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausefurther inquirydelay in FIRcivil dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of Crime No. 516/2020 registered at Police Station Landhi Karachi under Sections 489-F and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the civil nature of the underlying property and cheque dispute, and the fact that the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the unexplained delay of seven to eight months in reporting the crime, coupled with the nature of the documentary evidence and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause, brings the case within the scope of further inquiry, making bail the rule and refusal the exception. Consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant was confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of several months in lodging an FIR for a dishonoured cheque constitutes a ground for further inquiry warranting pre-arrest bail?
  • Do offences under Sections 489-F and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a dispute primarily arising from a real estate transaction and cheque issuance considered civil in nature so as to favour the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam etc vs The State2021 LHC 8084, 2022 P Cr. L J 1615 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-29
  benefit of doubtocular evidencechance witnessestest identification paradeforensic delaycriminal appealmurder convictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences awarded by the trial court for murder and robbery. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given the reliance on ocular testimony, recovery evidence, and forensic reports. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed. The court determined that the eyewitnesses were "chance witnesses" whose presence was doubtful, and the significant delay in preparing police papers and conducting the post-mortem indicated that the occurrence was un-witnessed and the prosecution story was fabricated. Furthermore, the court found the test identification parade unreliable due to procedural irregularities and the recovery of the crime weapon inconsequential due to an unexplained delay in forensic analysis. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant. The key principle laid down is that where multiple circumstances create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's narrative, the "golden rule" of benefit of doubt must be applied, requiring the acquittal of the accused to prevent the conviction of an innocent person.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in the transmission of police papers and post-mortem examination create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events?
  • What is the legal consequence of an unexplained delay in sending crime empties to the forensic science agency?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account is provided by chance witnesses whose presence at the scene is doubtful?
  • Does a test identification parade conducted with procedural irregularities, such as placing all suspects in the same row, lose its evidentiary value?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam etc vs State etc2021 P Cr. L J 1256, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 490 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-22
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of the doubtdelayed FIRocular accountacquitted co-accusedcorroborationmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences of the appellants recorded under Section 302(b) and other provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising out of a private complaint. The core legal questions involved the credibility of delayed ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of recoveries without forensic reports, and the application of the benefit of the doubt where co-accused with identical roles were acquitted. The Lahore High Court held that inordinate unexplained delay in reporting the crime, coupled with major improvements, contradictions, and the rejection of the prosecution's case against acquitted co-accused without independent corroboration, rendered the prosecution evidence highly doubtful. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants of all charges by extending the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the connected petition for leave to appeal against acquittal and revision for sentence enhancement. The key principles laid down include that a delayed FIR without plausible explanation undermines the prosecution case, that tainted ocular evidence disbelieved against some accused cannot be relied upon against others without independent corroboration, and that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on its own legs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case?
  • Can ocular testimony that has been disbelieved by the trial court with respect to certain acquitted co-accused be relied upon to maintain the conviction of other co-accused without independent corroboration?
  • Does the mere presence of injuries on the person of an injured witness automatically stamp them as a truthful witness when their testimony suffers from material contradictions and delayed police statements?
  • What is the evidentiary value of alleged weapon recoveries when no forensic science agency report is available on the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and others vs Inspector General Of Police (IGP), Islamabad and another2021 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 119 · Federal Service Tribunal
  out of turn promotionservice appealreversionlimitation periodcondonation of delaypolice personnelmisconductconstitutional violation
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated batch of service appeals challenged orders of the Inspector General of Police, Islamabad, reviving earlier departmental orders that cancelled appellants' out-of-turn promotions and reverted them to their substantive lower ranks following Supreme Court mandates. The core legal questions involved whether out-of-turn promotions granted to police personnel could be sustained, and whether the limitation period for filing service appeals should be condoned where appellants pursued remedies before the High Court in good faith. The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that out-of-turn promotions are illegal, discriminatory, and violative of constitutional provisions as settled by binding pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Tribunal laid down that all forms of out-of-turn promotions and antedated seniorities in the civil service must be undone and cannot be legally protected.

  Questions settled

  • Whether out-of-turn promotions granted to police personnel on account of gallantry awards or otherwise are legally sustainable?
  • Can the period spent in prosecuting a writ petition before the High Court in good faith be excluded for the purpose of condoning delay in filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Whether the cancellation of an illegal out-of-turn promotion and subsequent reversion to the substantive rank violates the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif, etc vs Tanveer Ahmad, etc2021 [M] C L R 1305 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs Tanveer Iqbal and 2 others2021 YLR 324 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-13
  criminal acquittal appealcheque dishonourdishonest intentiondouble presumption of innocencebest evidence ruledelay in FIRSection 489-F PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Acquittal Appeal challenges the judgment of a Judicial Magistrate acquitting the respondent in a case involving a dishonored cheque. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution sufficiently established the ingredients of the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically the dishonest intention and the existence of a loan or obligation, and whether the acquittal was perverse. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to an inordinate four-year delay in lodging the FIR, the failure to examine the bank manager (the best evidence), and the lack of proof that the cheque was issued for a loan or legal obligation. The court reaffirmed the principle that an accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence following an acquittal, and appellate interference is warranted only if the trial court's judgment is arbitrary or capricious. Mere dishonor of a cheque, without establishing dishonest intent and the underlying obligation, does not constitute an offence under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere dishonor of a cheque constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of dishonest intention?
  • What is the effect of an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR on the prosecution's case?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Is the failure to examine the bank manager in a cheque dishonor case a violation of the best evidence rule?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 71 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-19
  narcotics controlheroin recoveryquantum of sentencedefective weighing scaleforensic science agency reportconversion of convictionsubstance weight discrepancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for possessing 1050 grams of heroin, resulting in a sentence of six years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the contraband's weight and quantum of sentence when the forensic laboratory report indicates a discrepancy between the sample's weight taken by the police and that received by the expert. The Lahore High Court held that where a discrepancy exists due to a defective weighing scale, preference must be given to the weight determined by the laboratory experts, applying a proportionate reduction to the total bulk. The court laid down the principle that the weight determined by the forensic laboratory governs in cases of discrepancy, leading to the reduction of the proven weight below 1000 grams, thereby converting the conviction from Section 9(c) to Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and reducing the sentence accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect on the quantum of sentence when the weight of a narcotic sample reported by the forensic laboratory differs from the weight recorded by the investigating officer?
  • Can the conviction of an accused under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be converted to Section 9(b) due to discrepancies in the weight of the recovered contraband?
  • Whose determination of weight prevails in the case of a controversy between the scale used by the police and the scale used by the experts of the forensic laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Sulehria Advocate etc vs Pakistan Bar Council through Vice Chairman, Islamabad etc2021 PLJ Lahore 642 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Malik vs Ex-Officio Justice Of Peace, Lahore and 5 others2021 PLJ Lahore 429 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Awan vs Dawood Khan, etc2021 P SC 1357, 2021 SCMR 1270, 2021 SCP 238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-27
  specific performancebalance sale considerationreadiness and willingnessextension of timebona fideleave refusing orderprecedentcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that non-suited the appellant for failing to deposit the balance sale consideration within the timeframe initially stipulated by the trial court in a suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether a vendee is mandatorily required to deposit the balance sale price at the time of filing a suit or first appearance, and whether failure to do so entails automatic dismissal. The Supreme Court held that unlike pre-emption laws, the Specific Relief Act, 1877, contains no express provision requiring such a deposit at the institution stage. However, courts may direct a deposit to test the vendee's bona fides and readiness under Section 24(b). The Court clarified that the precedent in Hamood Mehmood (2017 SCMR 2022) was a leave-refusing order and did not constitute a binding enunciation of law. It further ruled that where a trial court's deposit order lacks penal consequences and the lis remains pending, the court retains jurisdiction to extend time. Consequently, the High Court's dismissal under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC was deemed misconceived, and the suit was restored.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Ansari & another vs Pakistan Television Corporation2021 SHC 448 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif and others vs The State and others2021 MLD 1360 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-11
  criminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubtchance witnessesocular evidenceacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the appellant challenged his death sentence, while the complainant filed a petition against the acquittal of co-accused. The core legal question concerned the reliability of ocular testimony and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a capital conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court observed that the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses who failed to establish their presence at the scene during the night, and their ability to assign specific injuries to each accused in a chaotic, dark environment was highly improbable. Furthermore, the court noted that the motive was unsubstantiated and the forensic report regarding the recovered weapon was negative. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing the settled principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to its benefit as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of chance witnesses who fail to establish their presence at the scene during night hours suffice for a conviction?
  • Is ocular testimony reliable when witnesses assign specific injuries to multiple accused during a chaotic night-time occurrence?
  • Does a negative forensic report regarding a recovered weapon entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Can suspicion regarding motive serve as a substitute for proof in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif and others vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1875 · Lahore High Court · 2006-11-20
  criminal appealmurder referencecapital punishmentidentification paradeun-named FIRbenefit of doubtextra-judicial confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellants by the Anti-Terrorism Court for qatl-i-amd and attempted dacoity inside a bank branch. The core legal question revolves around whether an un-witnessed FIR identifying unknown perpetrators, followed by an identification of the accused for the first time during trial after a significant delay without a prior identification parade, is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that in the absence of a proper identification parade, delayed dock identification, and lack of reliable corroborating evidence, the prosecution failed to establish its case against the appellants. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, ordered the release of the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The key legal principle laid down is that delayed identification of unnamed accused persons in court without a prior test identification parade and lacking corroborative evidence is insufficient to sustain a capital conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether dock identification of unnamed accused persons for the first time during trial without a prior identification parade is sufficient for conviction?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession made while in police custody admissible in evidence?
  • Does the failure to conduct a test identification parade prove fatal to the prosecution case in the absence of other corroborating evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif and another vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 479 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-10
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRchance witnessesacquittalinquest report discrepancies
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with others, beat the deceased to death following a dispute over a passage. The trial court convicted the appellants based on eye-witness testimony and alleged recoveries. Upon review, the High Court found the prosecution's case riddled with significant discrepancies, including an unexplained twenty-hour delay in lodging the FIR, contradictory evidence regarding the time and place of death, and inconsistencies between the inquest report and medical records. Furthermore, the court identified the eye-witnesses as chance witnesses whose presence was doubtful, and deemed the recoveries of the alleged weapons unreliable as they were from an accessible, open area and the weapons were of a common pattern. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted, reaffirming the principle that any single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are significant contradictions between medical evidence and the prosecution's narrative?
  • Is the recovery of common-pattern weapons from an accessible, open area sufficient to prove guilt?
  • Does the existence of a single reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif and another vs Naseem Begum and 2 others2021 MLD 1398 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Ali Usama vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1565 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-03
  fair trialdue processcall detail recordscross-examinationwitness credibilityproduction of documentsnarcotics trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order of the Special Court (CNS) dismissing the appellant's application to produce Call Detail Records (CDR) of mobile numbers belonging to prosecution witnesses in a narcotics case. The appellant, facing trial under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, argued that the recovery was fabricated and the witnesses were not present at the crime scene. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to summon these records, which the defense deemed essential to test the witnesses' credibility. The High Court held that the trial court failed to exercise its powers under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which allows for the production of documents necessary for a just decision. The Court emphasized that the right to a fair trial, guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, entitles an accused to produce evidence in their defense to shatter the credibility of prosecution witnesses. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to summon the requested CDRs to ensure a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include the right of an accused to produce evidence in their defense?
  • Can a trial court refuse to summon documents under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if they are necessary for a just decision?
  • Is an accused person entitled to obtain Call Detail Records of prosecution witnesses to challenge their credibility during cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif @ Assu vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 351 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-10
  criminal appealdying declarationelectronic evidencecapital punishmentcommutation of sentenceocular evidenceidentification paraderobbery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder and robbery. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account, the admissibility of a dying declaration recorded via mobile phone, and the appropriateness of the capital sentence after the court discarded forensic and recovery evidence. The Court held that the conviction was well-founded, relying on consistent eye-witness testimony and the dying declaration, which was deemed admissible under Article 164 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984. However, because the forensic report regarding crime empties and the recovery of currency were found unreliable, the Court determined that the case was no longer suitable for capital punishment. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The judgment establishes that while a conviction may be sustained through credible ocular evidence alone, the exclusion of corroborative forensic or recovery evidence due to procedural defects may necessitate the mitigation of a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Is a dying declaration recorded on a mobile device admissible as evidence under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment if the forensic and recovery evidence is discarded by the court?
  • Does the exclusion of forensic and recovery evidence necessarily invalidate a conviction based on consistent ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C.1534, 2021 P Cr. L J 586 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-18
  dishonest issuance of chequeSection 489-F PPCcriminal revisionunderlying obligationbenefit of doubtadverse inferencereappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the judgments of the courts below whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for allegedly issuing dishonored cheques. The core legal question was whether the essential ingredients of Section 489-F, specifically dishonest intention and the existence of a valid underlying transaction or obligation, were established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The Balochistan High Court held that mere issuance of a cheque and its subsequent dishonor do not constitute an offence under Section 489-F unless dishonest intent and a lawful underlying transaction or obligation are affirmatively proved, which the prosecution failed to do in this case, especially where the complainant filled the cheque himself and delayed reporting. The Court laid down the principle that the foundational elements of Section 489-F require proof of issuance with dishonest intention toward loan repayment or obligation fulfillment, and the absence of a verified commercial transaction or direct proof of fraudulent intent entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere issuance of a cheque and its subsequent dishonor by itself constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 without proof of dishonest intent?
  • What are the foundational elements and pre-conditions that must be fulfilled and proved by the prosecution to make out an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Can a criminal conviction under Section 489-F be sustained when the complainant fails to produce any agreement or documentary evidence establishing a valid business partnership or underlying transaction?
  • What is the legal effect under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 of the non-production of crucial material witnesses by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Sh. Muhammad Akram and others2022 PLD Lahore 414, 2022 CLD 638 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-14
  consumer protectionlimitation periodcause of actioncondonation of delayacknowledgement of liabilityproviso interpretationconsumer court
  Summary & questions settled

  The present appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Court, Multan, whereby the appellant's claim for lost goods under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 was dismissed as being time-barred. The core legal question involves the proper interpretation of subsection (4) of Section 28 of the Act, particularly regarding the limitation period, the starting point of the cause of action, and the scope of provisos allowing the extension of time or condonation of delay. The Lahore High Court held that the cause of action accrued when the goods failed to reach their destination by the stipulated date, and the limitation period of thirty days for filing a claim cannot be extended indefinitely through open-ended written notices or verbal assertions. Furthermore, the court held that provisos to a section act as exceptions and cannot render the main enactment redundant, and that an acknowledgement of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 can only extend time if made before the expiration of the original limitation period. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a claim under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 is barred by time if filed beyond thirty days from the date the cause of action accrues?
  • Can the limitation period for filing a claim before a Consumer Court be extended without filing a formal application for condonation of delay?
  • Does the issuance of a dishonoured cheque after the expiration of the original limitation period constitute a valid acknowledgement of liability to extend time under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • How do the provisos to subsection (4) of Section 28 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 interact with the main provision regarding the extension of time?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Mst. Najma Begum alias Najma Sultana, etc2021 CLC 612, 2021 [M] C L R 1135, 2021 LHC 108 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Akbar Ali2021 PLJ Lahore 603 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Addl. District Judge, etc2021 LHC 992, 2022 CLC 507 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Additional District Judge and others2022 MLD 170 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Malik and others vs Judge Accountability Court No. III, Islamabad and 3 others2021 P Cr. L J 953 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-19
  proclaimed offenderattachment of propertywrit jurisdictionalternate remedyaccountability courtlimitationCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three writ petitions challenging orders passed by an Accountability Court attaching properties belonging to a proclaimed offender, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. The petitioners, claiming various interests in the attached properties—including purchase agreements, family settlements, and leasehold rights—contended that the attachment process was procedurally flawed under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to challenge these attachments, despite the availability of a statutory remedy. The Court held that the petitions were not maintainable because Section 88(6-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 provides a specific, adequate, and efficacious remedy for any person claiming an interest in attached property to file objections before the trial court. The Court established that the existence of this statutory remedy precludes the invocation of writ jurisdiction, even if the petitioners argue that their remedy might be time-barred, as the trial court is the competent forum to adjudicate both the merits of the claims and the issue of limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person claiming interest in property attached under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bypass the statutory remedy to file a writ petition?
  • Does the existence of an alternate remedy under Section 88(6-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the maintainability of a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is the question of limitation regarding an objection to property attachment a valid ground to bypass the trial court and invoke writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Magsi vs Mst. Shafiqa Akbar and another2021 CLC 1342 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Kasi and 3 others vs Muhammad Yahya Kasi and others2022 YLR 910 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-07-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Iqbal and others vs Abid Hussain and others2021 YLR 2259 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Khan vs Mst. Umar and 03 others2021 PHC 178 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Chheena through L.Rs. and others vs Mst. Rehana Bibi2022 YLR 704 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashar Halim Quraishi vs Ex-Officio Justice Of Peace_Additional Sessions Judge, East Islamabad and 3 others2022 PCr. LJ 534, 2022 [M] CLR 650 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs Mst. Tahira Parveen and others2021 CLC 1537 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs Mst. Ghafooran through Legal Heirs and others2021 MLD 1745 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-13
  oral giftTamleekinheritance mutationburden of proofcivil revisionpleadingsdelivery of possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenges the appellate court's judgment dismissing the petitioner's suit for declaration of ownership based on an alleged oral gift (Tamleek) of land from his late father. The core legal question concerns the validity of the oral gift and whether the petitioner sufficiently proved the mandatory constituents of such a transaction. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner failed to establish the essential ingredients of a valid gift, specifically the offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession, with the required specificity regarding date, time, place, and witnesses. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner introduced evidence regarding witnesses not mentioned in the original plaint, which constitutes an impermissible departure from pleadings. The Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, emphasizing that when a gift is challenged, the beneficiary bears the burden of proving the primary transaction through trustworthy evidence. The judgment reinforces the principle that oral gifts must be strictly proven, and failure to do so, particularly when depriving legal heirs of their inheritance, renders the transaction invalid and contrary to law.

  Questions settled

  • What are the mandatory prerequisites for a valid oral gift under Islamic law?
  • Can a party lead evidence on facts not pleaded in the plaint?
  • Does the failure to specify the date, time, and place of an oral gift render the transaction invalid?
  • Is a beneficiary of an oral gift required to prove the transaction independently of the mutation record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar and 2 others vs The Islamic Republic Of Pakistan, through Secretary Defence Islamabad and 2 others2021 PLJ Quetta 230, 2021 CLC 92 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arslan vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 307 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-07
  post-arrest baildishonestly issuing a chequeprohibitory clausefurther inquirydelay in FIRcriminal breach
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by Muhammad Arslan seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 498/2020 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Manawan, District Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the absence of corroborative material regarding the transaction during investigation, and whether the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The court held that the unexplained delay of over seven months in reporting the matter, the absence of specific details regarding the issuance of the cheque, and the fact that the offense carries a maximum punishment of three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., rendered the case one of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that grant of bail in offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule and refusal is an exception.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 makes a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Does an offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is grant of bail the general rule when an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arslan alias Zeeshan Shani Mohli vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 188 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-30
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencechance witnessesmurder trialidentification of accusedmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on ocular testimony in a dark-night occurrence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, acquitting the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt. The ratio decidendi emphasizes that where witnesses are chance witnesses, their presence must be plausibly explained. Furthermore, in a night-time occurrence, the failure of the investigating officer to secure the alleged source of light (torches) renders the identification of the accused highly doubtful. The Court also established that medical evidence, while confirming unnatural death, is insufficient to identify a specific culprit without reliable ocular corroboration. Additionally, uncorroborated motive and inconsequential weapon recovery cannot sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment, ruling that any doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the investigating officer to recover the alleged source of light in a night-time occurrence render the identification of the accused doubtful?
  • Can medical evidence alone sustain a conviction for murder in the absence of reliable ocular testimony?
  • Is the testimony of chance witnesses sufficient to prove guilt if they fail to provide a plausible reason for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does the benefit of doubt extend to the accused when the prosecution fails to prove the motive and the recovery of the weapon is inconclusive?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The State2021 P S c (Crl.) 110, 2020 SCMR 2025, 2020 SCP 188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-07
  leave to appeallife imprisonmentinjured eyewitnessesprompt FIRsuppression of injuryappreciation of evidenceocular accountsingle accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the petitioner's conviction under Section 302(b) PPC but reduced his sentence from death to life imprisonment. The petitioner was convicted for a daylight murder and for causing severe injuries to two women with a hatchet. The core legal questions pertained to whether the prosecution suppressed an injury allegedly sustained by the petitioner, whether the evidence was properly appreciated, and whether the sentence should be reduced under Section 302(c) PPC. The Supreme Court held that the ocular account by injured eyewitnesses was prompt, credible, and corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to prove any injury sustained during the occurrence, as no doctor was summoned and no counter-version was lodged. Finding no merit or substantial material warranting interference, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and declined leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an accused to produce medical evidence or lodge a counter-version invalidate a defense claim of suppressed injury?
  • Can conviction under Section 302(b) PPC be sustained based on prompt FIR, ocular account of injured witnesses, and corroborative medical evidence?
  • Whether the mere allegation of injury by an accused without supporting material justifies converting a conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) PPC?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The State and others2021 YLR 785 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-03-10
  qatl-shibh-i-amddiyyatenhancement of sentencedelayed FIRinterested witnessesmedical evidenceintent
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Bhimber, which convicted the appellant Muhammad Arshad under section 316 of the Azad Penal Code for qatl-shibh-i-amd and sentenced him to pay Diyyat. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the charge of murder or qatl-shibh-i-amd, whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the non-production of certain witnesses vitiated the trial, and whether the sentence of Diyyat warranted enhancement. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the appellant lacked the requisite intention or weapon to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, thereby upholding the conviction for qatl-shibh-i-amd rather than premeditated murder. The Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, partly accepted the legal heirs' appeal for enhancement, and increased the amount of Diyyat, directing simple imprisonment until payment if defaulted. The key principle laid down is that where an accused attacks with a blunt weapon or fists/kicks on non-vital parts without a preplanned intention to kill, and death results from internal injuries, the offense falls under qatl-shibh-i-amd rather than intentional murder.

  Questions settled

  • Does causing injuries with a stick or kicks on non-vital parts resulting in death constitute qatl-i-amd or qatl-shibh-i-amd?
  • Whether the testimony of related or eye-witnesses can be discarded solely due to their relationship with the deceased in the absence of established enmity?
  • Is the prosecution bound to examine every witness cited in the calendar of witnesses?
  • Can the amount of Diyyat be enhanced by the appellate court upon an appeal for enhancement filed by the legal heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs State/Government Of Punjab etc2021 PLJ Lahore 606 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs Muhammad Ilyas Naveed etc2021 PLJ Lahore 225 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Nadeem vs The State2021 SCP 346, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 964 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-13
  post-arrest bailcondonation of delaysufficient causejail petitionprohibitory clausefundamental rightsright to fair trialmisappropriation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the High Court declining post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who faced corruption and forgery charges. The primary legal questions addressed were whether incarceration of a petitioner seeking post-arrest bail constitutes 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay in filing a petition under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in refusing bail under the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the incarceration of an accused behind bars inherently creates disabilities amounting to 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay under a liberal and lenient approach aligned with fundamental rights to liberty, dignity, and fair trial under Articles 9, 10A, and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. On the merits, the Court held that the High Court's discretion in denying bail was neither arbitrary nor perverse given the strong incriminating material linking the petitioner to financial misappropriation falling within the prohibitory clause. The key principle laid down is that incarceration itself constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay in criminal petitions involving liberty unless attributable to contumacious conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Does the incarceration of an accused person behind bars constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's discretion in declining post-arrest bail when no gross misreading of record or perversity is shown?
  • Is the refusal of bail for offenses falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a punitive measure or a preventive step?
  • How does the right to liberty, dignity, and fair trial under the Constitution of Pakistan influence the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for imprisoned petitioners?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Nadeem vs StatePLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-13
  post-arrest bailcondonation of delayjail petitionprohibitory clausefundamental rightsliberty and dignitypreventive detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order declining post-arrest bail, accompanied by an application for condonation of a 72-day delay in filing. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner's incarceration constitutes "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay and whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing bail. The Court held that a liberal approach is required for jail petitions, as incarceration inherently restricts access to legal remedies, implicating fundamental rights to liberty, dignity, and fair trial under the Constitution. Consequently, the delay was condoned. Regarding the merits, the Court affirmed that while bail is not a punishment, refusal is a preventive measure for offences falling within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Finding that the High Court’s order was neither arbitrary nor perverse and that incriminating material existed, the Court dismissed the petition. The key principle established is that incarceration of a petitioner seeking post-arrest bail generally constitutes "sufficient cause" for condoning delay in filing appeals, absent evidence of ulterior motive.

  Questions settled

  • Does the incarceration of a petitioner seeking post-arrest bail constitute 'sufficient cause' for condoning a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Is the refusal of bail for offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, considered a punitive measure?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by a High Court in bail matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Malik vs Pakistan International Airline Corporation2021 PLD Sindh 347 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Latif and another vs The State Through Chairman, National Accountability Bureau and another2021 CLD 1253 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Khan vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1305 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-26
  post-arrest bailnarcotics possessionfurther inquirycriminal procedureKP-CNSA
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition is directed by the accused-petitioner, Muhammad Arshad Khan, seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 169 dated 25.03.2021 registered under Section 9-D of the KP-CNSA at Police Station City, District Kohat, involving the alleged possession of 6000 grams of charas. The core legal question revolves around whether the accused is entitled to bail despite a large quantity of narcotics recovered, given the prosecution's lapses in the investigation and record-keeping. The Peshawar High Court held that cumulatively, the slackness in the investigation, the absence of vehicle registration details or the driver's statement, the lack of entry register copy, and the discrepancy between the narcotics described in the FIR and the Forensic Science Laboratory report make the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, since the investigation was complete, continued incarceration served no useful purpose. The petition was consequently allowed, and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail upon furnishing appropriate security bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether discrepancies between the substance described in the FIR and the FSL report can make a case one of further inquiry for bail?
  • Does slackness on the part of the prosecution in maintaining investigation records entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Can an accused be granted bail in a narcotics case involving a prohibitory clause when further incarceration serves no useful purpose?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Anjum vs Mst. Khurshid Begum and others2021 PSC 1430, 2021 SCMR 1145, 2022 PLJ SC 26 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-16
  Section 12(2) CPCfraud and misrepresentationFamily Court jurisdictioninherent powersdower decreebona fide purchaserprocedural exclusion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a challenge to a Family Court decree by a subsequent purchaser of land, who alleged that the decree for dower was obtained through collusion and fraud between the spouses. The petitioner filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which was dismissed along with subsequent appeals on the ground that general CPC provisions do not apply to Family Courts. The core legal question was whether the statutory exclusion of CPC provisions (except Sections 10 and 11) under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 precludes a Family Court from re-examining its decree on allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and directed the Additional District Judge to decide the Section 12(2) application on merits. The Court laid down that fraud vitiates solemn proceedings, and despite procedural exclusions, a Family Court possesses inherent jurisdiction to recall or rectify orders tainted by fraud to secure justice and prevent abuse of process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of general CPC provisions under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 bar a Family Court from entertaining an application alleging fraud and misrepresentation?
  • Does a Family Court possess inherent jurisdiction to set aside or recall a decree obtained by fraud?
  • Can a Family Court borrow procedures from civil law to secure the ends of justice in the absence of an express statutory prohibition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and 4 others vs Safdar Ali2021 CLC 1898 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad & another vs The State & another2021 LHC 4536, 2022 PLD 437 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-29
  suspension of sentencestatutory delaybail pending appealjurisdiction of Single Benchappeal against acquittalaudi alteram partemcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal miscellaneous applications for suspension of sentence pending appeal against conviction, where the applicants sought bail due to statutory delay. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of these applications before a Single Bench, given that a related appeal against the acquittal of co-accused was pending. The Court held that the mere filing of an appeal against acquittal does not divest a Single Bench of jurisdiction to hear an appeal against conviction or an application for suspension of sentence, unless a notice has been issued to the acquitted accused, which would necessitate a Division Bench under the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders. On merits, finding that the applicants were not hardened criminals and had suffered significant incarceration, the Court granted the suspension of sentence based on statutory delay. The Court established that the right to liberty is paramount and directed that appeals against acquittal should be fixed for hearing before the final adjudication of related appeals against conviction to prevent conflicting outcomes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere filing of an appeal against acquittal under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a Single Bench from hearing an appeal against conviction?
  • At what stage does an appeal against acquittal require a Division Bench hearing under the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders?
  • Is a convict entitled to suspension of sentence under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely based on the statutory delay in appeal disposal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1457 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-01
  murderanti-terrorismcapital sentencemitigating circumstancesunproven motiveocular accountballistic expertpersonal vendetta
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for murder and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the establishment of motive, the applicability of the Anti-Terrorism Act to a workplace killing arising from personal grievance, and the quantum of sentence where motive is unproven. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular account, corroborated by medical evidence and weapon recovery, proved the commission of the murder beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Court ruled that the incident stemmed from personal vendetta rather than designing terror, thereby excluding the application of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Furthermore, because the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive and the appellant fired a single shot resulting in death after three days, the capital sentence was converted to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that the failure of the prosecution to prove an asserted motive serves as a mitigating factor warranting the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment, and that personal vendettas do not attract anti-terrorism laws.

  Questions settled

  • Does a workplace murder stemming from an employee reporting another's absence attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can the failure of the prosecution to prove an asserted motive serve as a mitigating factor to convert a death sentence into imprisonment for life?
  • Whether minor discrepancies regarding the locale of injury in the crime report versus the medical evidence vitiate an otherwise trustworthy ocular account?
  • Does the transmission of crime empties to the forensic science agency prior to the arrest of the accused provide valid corroboration through weapon recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif s/o Qismat Ullah r/o Shumali Bugna, presently W-564,2021 SC AJK 44 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Memon vs Province of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 440 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Ice Factory and others vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 PTD 1608 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Chattha and others vs Additional District Judge, Gujranwala and others2022 SCMR 958, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 300, 2022 PSC 1083 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-11
  execution of decreepre-emption decreelimitation periodsecond execution applicationdismissal for non-prosecutionconditional decreedelivery of possession
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondents filed a suit for possession through pre-emption, which was decreed by the Lahore High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court. The respondents filed a first execution application which was dismissed for non-prosecution, followed by a second execution application. The petitioners objected that the second application was barred by limitation under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and was not maintainable due to the dismissal of the first application. The Executing Court, Revisional Court, and High Court rejected the petitioners' objections, leading to the petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a pre-emption decree is conditional and imposes reciprocal obligations; where no specific date for delivery of possession is mentioned in the decree, the limitation period for execution is reckoned from the date of default in delivering possession rather than the date of the decree. Furthermore, a subsequent execution application is maintainable if the earlier application was dismissed for default rather than adjudicated on merits, provided it falls within the prescribed limitation period. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • From which date does the limitation period for filing an execution application of a pre-emption decree commence when no specific date for the delivery of possession is mentioned in the decree?
  • Is a second execution application maintainable if the first execution application was dismissed for non-prosecution rather than decided on merits?
  • What is the nature of a pre-emption decree regarding the obligations of the parties under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif and 2 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 919, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 391 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-13
  pre-arrest bailhouse trespasscivil disputedelayed FIRpossession disputecriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 339 dated 05.07.2020 registered under Sections 452, 447, 354, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Satrah, District Sialkot, concerning allegations of house trespass, beating inmates, outraging modesty, and forcible possession. The core legal question pertained to whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the civil disputes pending between the parties, an unexplained eight-day delay in lodging the FIR, and conflicting claims of possession. The Lahore High Court held that since both parties claimed possession of the disputed property, civil suits were already pending adjudication, the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of eight days, and the petitioners had joined the investigation, no useful purpose would be served by taking them into custody. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and confirmed the pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where possession is disputed and civil litigation regarding the property is pending between the parties alongside an unexplained delay in the FIR, pre-arrest bail may be confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Are petitioners entitled to pre-arrest bail when there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and civil suits regarding the disputed property are already pending between the parties?
  • Does joining the investigation by the accused support the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in property-related criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Ameen etc vs The Province of Punjab etc2021 PLC (C.S.) 752, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 752, 2021 LHC 484 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-04
  regularization of servicecontract employeesalternative statutory remedymaintainability of constitutional petitionintra-court appealbar of appealtermination of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves intra-court appeals and constitutional petitions filed by retired army personnel recruited on contract by the Punjab Police, challenging the termination of their services after they failed to qualify for regularization under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018. The core legal question was whether constitutional petitions and intra-court appeals are maintainable when the governing statute provides an adequate alternative remedy of appeal, and whether the bar to intra-court appeals applies when the statutory appellate forum was not functional at the time of filing. The Lahore High Court held that the petitions and appeals were not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under section 12 of the Act, and that the bar under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 applies irrespective of whether the remedy was actually availed. The court established that litigants must exhaust statutory remedies and cannot bypass specialized tribunals through constitutional jurisdiction, while also mandating the state to ensure that appellate committees are duly constituted and functional.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an intra-court appeal is maintainable against a judgment passed in a constitutional petition arising from proceedings where the governing statute provides a remedy of appeal?
  • Does the bar contained in the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 apply if the statutory remedy of appeal was not availed because the appellate forum was not functional at the time?
  • Can a constitutional petition be entertained by bypassing the alternative statutory remedy provided under the relevant special statute?
  • Is the right of appeal considered a substantive right, and is the state obligated to make the appellate forum functional under the statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1026 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-21
  narcotics controlrecovery of bhukkipolice witnessescriminal appealsaf custody of case propertyforensic science report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the possession of 1500 grams of Bhukki and sentencing him to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of the contraband beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimonies of police witnesses and forensic evidence, despite the absence of independent public witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution established its case beyond a shadow of doubt, as the police witnesses remained consistent, credible, and unshaken during cross-examination, and their statements were corroborated by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency report. The key principle laid down is that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony carries weight equal to civilian witnesses, particularly when no prior enmity or mala fide is established against them, and when their depositions successfully withstand rigorous cross-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police witnesses alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in the absence of independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of the accused to appear as his own witness under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 weaken his defense?
  • Whether minor discrepancies in police testimonies are fatal to the prosecution's case regarding the recovery of narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Muhammad Aslam and others2021 SCMR 107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-15
  pre-emptionTalab-i-Ishhadspecific performanceconcurrent findingsPunjab Pre-emption Act 1991interregnum period
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal challenging the Lahore High Court order upholding concurrent findings of dismissal of the petitioner's suit for pre-emption. The core legal question concerns the validity of the pre-emption suit regarding a sale effected through a civil court decree during the interregnum period when no statutory pre-emption law was in force, and the applicability of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings against the petitioner were unexceptionable as he failed to establish the performance of Talabs in accordance with law, and could not satisfy the mandatory requirements under section 6(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts in a pre-emption suit can be interfered with when the mandatory requirements of Talabs are not established?
  • How are pre-emption cases instituted during the interregnum period when no statutory pre-emption law was in force governed under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991?
  • Does section 35 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 relax the strict requirements of section 6(2) of the said Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Mst. Bahrawar Sultana and 2 others2021 CLC 1707 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Director General, Central Directorate Of National2021 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 23 · Federal Service Tribunal
  ante-dated promotionservice appealdepartmental promotion committeepast and closed transactionres judicataservice tribunal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenges the refusal of the respondent department to grant the appellant ante-dated promotion effective from 29.06.1989, following his acquittal in criminal proceedings and exoneration in departmental inquiries. The core legal question is whether the appellant is entitled to a judicial order for ante-dated promotion after the department, in compliance with a previous Tribunal directive, considered and rejected his case through the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondents had fulfilled the previous mandate by placing the appellant’s case before the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Tribunal emphasized that it lacks the authority to order promotion itself, as its jurisdiction is limited to directing the consideration of such matters. The principle established is that once a competent authority has considered a promotion case in compliance with a judicial directive, the matter becomes a past and closed transaction, and the rule of conclusiveness of judgment bars re-litigation of the same issue. The Tribunal cannot revisit substantive issues already decided in previous proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Service Tribunal order the promotion of a civil servant directly?
  • Does the rule of conclusiveness of judgment bar re-litigation of a service matter already decided by a Departmental Promotion Committee?
  • Is a previous judicial direction to consider a promotion case satisfied once the Departmental Promotion Committee has reviewed and rejected the claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar S/o Muhammad Saeed vs Mst. Fouzia Qasim and2021 SHC 510 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Malik vs Divisional Medical Officer Pakistan Railways, Bogie Road, Lahore and 4 others2022 PLJ Tr.C.(Services) 112 · Federal Service Tribunal
  medical reimbursementservice appealemergency medical treatmentpost-facto sanctiongovernment servantmedical attendance rulesadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, challenging the refusal of the Pakistan Railways to reimburse medical expenses incurred by the appellant for his wife's emergency surgery at a private hospital. The core legal question was whether a government employee is entitled to reimbursement for emergency medical treatment obtained at a private facility without prior departmental sanction, particularly when the department's own hospital lacked the necessary expertise. The Tribunal held that the rejection of the claim was illegal and unjustified. It ruled that in life-threatening emergencies, procedural requirements for prior approval cannot override the necessity of saving a patient's life. The Tribunal emphasized that government departments must promote good governance and that reimbursement claims in emergencies should be examined on their merits rather than rejected on technical grounds. The principle laid down is that where emergency treatment is necessary, post-facto sanction is permissible, and departments cannot arbitrarily retract approval once the claim has been processed and verified by competent medical authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department refuse reimbursement for emergency medical treatment solely on the ground that prior sanction was not obtained?
  • Is a government department bound to reimburse medical expenses incurred at a private hospital if the departmental hospital lacked the necessary facilities?
  • Can a government department retract a medical reimbursement claim after it has been processed and approved by the relevant medical officers?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and another vs The State and another2021 YLR 1346 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-26
  falsus in uno falsus in omnibusbenefit of doubtmurder referenceQatl-i-Amdocular evidencedishonest improvementperjurycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for the offence of Qatl-i-Amd. The core legal question is whether the prosecution proved the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the sole eye-witness's testimony was previously rejected by the trial court regarding co-accused in the same incident, and whether such testimony can be relied upon against the appellants. The Court held that the testimony of the sole eye-witness, having been found untruthful and having made dishonest improvements to implicate the appellants, must be discarded in its entirety under the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. The Court further held that the medical evidence contradicted the eye-witness's account, the motive was unproven, and the recovery of weapons was procedurally flawed under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants and answering the Murder Reference in the negative, establishing that a witness found to have lied on material aspects is unworthy of credit, and that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a witness be relied upon if the witness has been found to have deposed falsely regarding co-accused in the same case?
  • Does the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply to criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of abscondence when the substantive ocular evidence has been rejected?
  • Is the recovery of weapons valid if the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are violated?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anees vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Government of Pakistan Islamabad and others2021 SHC 292 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad and another vs The State2022 YLR 967 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-09-06
  criminal appealmurder trialfalsus in uno falsus in omnibuscontradictory statementsbelated FIRbenefit of doubthonorary acquittaljudicial misconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge, Badin, whereby the appellants were convicted for murder and house trespass. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on belated statements and material contradictions. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case due to dishonest investigation, severe contradictions in eye-witness accounts, and deliberate improvements made weeks after the incident. Applying the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, the court discarded the tainted testimonies and noted that the initial report stated the culprits were un-identified. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned judgment, honorably acquitting the appellants and co-accused. The key principle laid down is that material contradictions, belated statements without plausible explanation, and dishonest improvements by eye-witnesses render their testimony untrustworthy, and the falsus in uno rule forms an integral part of criminal jurisprudence requiring the rejection of testimony found to contain deliberate falsehoods.

  Questions settled

  • Whether belated statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. after a considerable unexplained delay can form the basis of a conviction?
  • Does the rule 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' apply to discard the entire testimony of a witness found to have resorted to deliberate falsehood?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to acquittal when the initial report describes the culprits as un-identified and subsequent improvements introduce named accused?
  • What is the legal effect of non-production of the investigating officer and severe flaws in the police investigation on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anar Tarar vs Province Of Punjab through District Officer2021 YLR 1691 · Lahore High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad vs The Director General, Quetta Development Authority2022 SCMR 797, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 594, 2022 PSC 494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-27
  promotionupgradationvested rightlocus poenitentiaeservice lawantedated promotionavailability of postcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a challenge to a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition regarding the effective date of the appellant's promotion. The appellant, an employee of the Quetta Development Authority (QDA), claimed his promotion to Chief Accounts Officer (BPS-19) should take effect from December 3, 2004, based on a Governing Body recommendation, rather than the actual promotion date of September 20, 2012. The Supreme Court examined the Quetta Development Authority Ordinance, 1978, and the Service Regulations of 2010. The Court held that promotion is not a vested right and is contingent upon the availability of a sanctioned post within the service structure. It was determined that the post of Chief Accounts Officer was only created in the 2012-2013 budget; thus, no promotion could be granted retrospectively to a period when the post was non-existent. The Court further clarified the distinction between 'upgradation' and 'promotion', noting that upgradation is a policy-based monetary benefit to alleviate stagnation and cannot be used to bypass recruitment rules for specific individuals. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant can claim promotion as a vested right from a date when the relevant post had not yet been created?
  • What is the legal distinction between 'promotion' and 'upgradation' in the context of service law?
  • Can the principle of locus poenitentiae be invoked to protect a promotion order issued without legal sanction or the existence of a sanctioned post?
  • Whether the Governing Body of a statutory authority is bound to accept the recommendations of a Selection Board if reasons for non-acceptance are recorded?
  Read full judgment →