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 Amjad Khan Afridi & others vs Shad Muhammad & others2021 SCP 392, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-17
  guardian ad litemminor litigantex parte decreeparens patriaecivil procedurepreemption
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal addressed whether lower forums erred in refusing to set aside an ex parte decree against minor appellants whose court-appointed guardian ad litem failed to appear. The Supreme Court considered the obligations of courts and guardians under civil procedure regarding minor litigants. The court held that where a guardian ad litem fails to appear or otherwise neglects their duty to defend a minor, the court is bound under Order 32 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to remove the guardian and appoint a new one, and a minor defendant cannot lawfully be proceeded against ex parte without fulfilling these protective measures. The appeal was accordingly accepted in part to set aside the ex parte decree regarding the minor appellants, establishing that courts act as parens patriae to vigilantly protect the interests of vulnerable minor litigants.

  Questions settled

  • What is the duty of a court under Order 32 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a guardian ad litem fails to appear or perform their duty?
  • Can a minor defendant be validly proceeded against ex parte without the court first replacing a negligent guardian ad litem?
  • What are the constitutional responsibilities of the State and the courts regarding the protection of minor citizens in legal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs National Bank Of Pakistan through Manager2021 CLD 553 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and another vs Ministry Of Interior, through Secretary, Government of Pakistan and 2 others2021 [M] C L R 902, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 615 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-10
  Chairman NADRAappointment criteriadiscretionselection committeeage limitmalicequo warrantopolicy matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a batch of constitutional petitions challenging the appointment of Usman Yousaf Mubin as Chairman of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) for a three-year term. The core legal questions revolved around whether the fixation of the maximum age limit of 55 years and the subsequent alteration of internal scoring criteria by the Selection Committee after receiving applications vitiated the appointment process, and whether the appointment violated the provisions of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000. The Islamabad High Court held that the Federal Government is the competent authority to determine appointment criteria under the NADRA Ordinance in the absence of framed rules, provided such discretion is structured and exercised reasonably. The Court ruled that the fixation of the upper age limit had attained finality through earlier binding litigation and that the adjustment of internal evaluation marks to align with the advertisement was a valid policy prerogative of the Selection Board devoid of established malice. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, and the appointment was upheld as legally valid.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government possesses the authority to fix an upper age limit for the appointment of the Chairman NADRA under the NADRA Ordinance, 2000?
  • Can the internal assessment and scoring criteria for shortlisting candidates be altered by a selection committee after the initiation of the recruitment process?
  • Does the absence of statutory rules framed under Section 44 of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000 render the appointment of the Chairman NADRA unconstitutional?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere in policy matters regarding executive appointments in the absence of proven mala fides or violation of fundamental rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Abid and others vs Chief Executive Officer (District2021 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 91 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  removal from servicelocus poenitentiaevested rightprocedural lapsereinstatementback benefitsservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Punjab Service Tribunal addresses four service appeals filed by teachers challenging their removal from service after 22 years of continuous employment. The appellants were recruited in 1995 as teachers under the 1994 Recruitment Policy and subsequently enhanced their educational qualifications. In 2017, a second departmental inquiry recommended their removal on the grounds that they possessed third-division degrees and their names were omitted from the Departmental Recruitment Committee minutes. Consequently, major penalties of removal from service were imposed under Section 13(4) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act 2006. The core legal question was whether an employee can be terminated after long service due to departmental procedural lapses when no fraud or misrepresentation was committed by the employee. The Tribunal set aside the removal orders and reinstated the appellants with full back benefits. The Tribunal held that under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae, once a valid appointment order is issued and implemented, creating a vested right, it cannot be rescinded due to the department's own procedural shortcomings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent an authority from revoking an appointment order after a vested right has accrued to an employee?
  • Can a civil servant be removed from service due to departmental procedural irregularities where no misrepresentation or fraud is attributed to the employee?
  • Does the acquisition of higher educational qualifications cure an initial defect regarding minimum division requirements at the time of recruitment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameer alias Kali and others vs The State and others2021 SCMR 1192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-14
  murderocular evidencemedical evidenceballistic reportcriminal appealsafe administration of justiceconvictionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a murder conviction involving multiple accused persons. The petitioners were convicted by the trial court for the murder of the deceased, with the High Court subsequently commuting their death sentences to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the ocular account in light of alleged discrepancies with the medical evidence, specifically regarding the trajectory of firearm injuries and the role of individual assailants. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that while the prosecution successfully established the guilt of one petitioner, Riaz Ahmed, based on recovered ballistic evidence and consistent ocular testimony, the case against the second petitioner, Muhammad Ameer alias Kali, was fraught with evidentiary doubt. The Court held that where ballistic evidence links a specific weapon to a single assailant, maintaining a conviction against a co-accused based on conflicting ocular testimony is unsafe. Consequently, the Court acquitted Muhammad Ameer alias Kali, while maintaining the conviction and sentence of Riaz Ahmed, emphasizing the principle that safe administration of criminal justice requires the exclusion of doubt in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be maintained against a co-accused when ballistic evidence links the crime to a single assailant?
  • Does a discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding injury trajectory necessarily dismantle the entire prosecution case?
  • Is it safe to maintain a conviction when the prosecution's evidence against one of multiple accused is found to be fraught with risk of error?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameen vs The State2022 YLR 694 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-02-11
  narcoticscharas recoverypolice witnesseschemical examiner reportdelayed dispatch of samplepresumption of guiltjail appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9-b of the Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months with a fine. The core legal questions involved whether the non-association of private witnesses vitiates the recovery, whether delay in sending the narcotics sample to the chemical examiner is fatal to the prosecution's case, and whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Balochistan High Court held that the testimony of police officials is competent and credible in the absence of proven enmity, that the provisions regarding the 72-hour timeframe for sending samples to the laboratory are directory rather than mandatory, and that the prosecution successfully discharged its onus of proof, raising a presumption of guilt under the special law which the appellant failed to rebut. The appeal was consequently dismissed and the conviction maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials can be relied upon for conviction in narcotics cases without joining private witnesses?
  • Is the delay in sending the narcotic sample to the chemical examiner fatal to the prosecution case?
  • Whether the provisions regarding the timeframe for sending samples under the relevant rules are mandatory or directory?
  • Does section 29 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997 raise a presumption of guilt against the accused once the prosecution discharges its initial onus?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameen vs Mst. ShaziaSaleem, etc2021 IHC 140 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Altaf Aziz vs MCB Bank Limited through Manager2021 CLD 992 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Wazir (Mna) and another vs Federation Of Pakistan2021 P Cr. L J 165 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-31
  writ petitionchange of venuejail trialanti-terrorismpost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court challenging notifications issued under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which ordered their trials in specific criminal cases to be held within the premises of Central Jail Haripur. The core legal question was whether the continuation of trial proceedings inside the jail premises remained justified after the petitioners were released on bail and their circumstances had materially changed. The court held that since the petitioners were now on bail and neither the parties nor the witnesses belonged to Haripur, holding the trial inside the jail was no longer sensible or appropriate. The court set aside the impugned notifications and directed that the trial be conducted at Peshawar before the designated Anti-Terrorism Court, while granting liberty to the respondents to seek a change of venue if valid safety concerns subsequently arose.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government direct a trial under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to be held within jail premises?
  • Does the release of accused persons on bail justify changing the venue of a trial previously ordered to be held in jail?
  • Whether a trial ordered to be held inside a prison can be relocated to an ordinary court when security grounds change?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 373 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-29
  criminal appealmurderocular testimonybenefit of doubtchance witnessesdishonest improvementmotiveacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under sections 302(c) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, given the alleged ocular testimony, motive, and recovery evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court observed that the ocular witnesses, despite being close relatives of the deceased, were spared by the assailants, which was deemed unnatural. Furthermore, the alleged motive of illicit relations remained unsubstantiated, and the recovery of the crime weapon was compromised by delays and lack of exclusive possession. Significant contradictions between the testimonies of the witnesses and the police, alongside dishonest improvements in the witnesses' statements, rendered the prosecution's evidence unreliable. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing the golden rule that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused when guilt is not proven firmly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prove an alleged motive entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Can the testimony of ocular witnesses be discarded if they are found to be chance witnesses and their presence is doubtful?
  • What is the legal effect of dishonest improvements made by prosecution witnesses during trial?
  • Does the recovery of a crime weapon from an open place, combined with a delay in forensic analysis, lose its evidentiary value?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs StatePLJ 2021.Cr.C. (Lahore) 483 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-14
  abductionbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRocular accountcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence of abduction under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Court was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of an unexplained forty-one-day delay in lodging the FIR, the appellant's absence from the initial FIR, and material contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The Court held that the inordinate delay in setting the law in motion, combined with the lack of corroborative evidence and the shaky nature of the ocular account—where the victim herself expressed ignorance of the appellant's identity—rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that where prosecution evidence is riddled with inconsistencies and unexplained delays, the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right rather than grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR undermine the veracity of the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when the victim fails to identify the accused during trial?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal when the prosecution evidence is riddled with material contradictions and dishonest improvements?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Muhammad Anwer alias T.T. and another2021 YLR 514 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-11
  criminal acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencematerial contradictionsappreciation of evidencebenefit of doubtmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the trial court's judgment acquitting the respondent of murder charges. The core legal question was whether the acquittal was justified given the evidence presented and whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial court's findings. The High Court held that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it. The court reasoned that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting significant material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the failure to examine the medical officer, and the absence of any recovery from the respondent. Furthermore, the court observed that a co-accused, charged on the same set of evidence, had been acquitted by the trial court, and that judgment had attained finality. The court affirmed the principle that an acquittal by a competent court confers a double presumption of innocence upon the accused, which an appellate court should not disturb lightly absent compelling grounds, especially after a protracted trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment when the prosecution evidence contains material contradictions?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the same set of evidence entitle the remaining accused to acquittal?
  • What is the legal effect of the double presumption of innocence in criminal appeals against acquittal?
  • Is the failure to examine the medical officer who conducted the post-mortem fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Mst. Tooba & Others2021 SHC 174 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Jaffar Ali and 2 others2021 YLR 305 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Atlas Khan and 2 others2021 CLC 678 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Solangi vs The State2021 SHC 846 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-12
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelayed FIRattempted abductionnon-recovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of FIR No. 45 of 2021 registered at Police Station Radhan Station for offenses under Sections 365-B, 511, 354, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the tentative nature of the allegations regarding attempted abduction and the delay in lodging the FIR. The Sindh High Court held that the case called for further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C., noting a one-day delay in reporting the incident, the absence of weapon recovery despite allegations, and the fact that the victim's statement remained unrecorded. Consequently, the court confirmed the grant of post-arrest bail to the applicant. The key principle laid down is that where essential ingredients of heinous offenses require deeper appreciation and evidence at trial, coupled with non-recovery of alleged weapons and delay in lodging the FIR, the accused makes out a case for further inquiry warranting post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a one-day delay in lodging an FIR along with non-recovery of an alleged weapon constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  • Whether an accused charged with an attempt to commit an offense under Section 365-B read with Section 511 PPC is entitled to post-arrest bail when the victim's statement has not yet been recorded?
  • Are tentative assessments of the record at the bail stage sufficient to warrant the release of an accused pending trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Shah and 45 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Ministry of Labour and Manpower, Islamabad and 5 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 295 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-24
  Regularization of serviceConstitutional petitionContract employeesState-owned enterpriseThird-party contractorService lawParity of treatment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, contract employees of Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (SSGCL), sought regularization of their services, alleging they were performing permanent duties despite being labeled as third-party contract employees. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the constitutional petition, arguing that SSGCL is a private limited company and the petitioners had alternative remedies under labour laws. The core legal questions were whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a state-owned enterprise and whether long-serving contract employees are entitled to regularization. The Court held that SSGCL, being under the dominative control of the State, is amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Relying on established precedents, the Court rejected the third-party contractor defense as a sham where the employer retains control over the work. The Court affirmed that regularization depends on the length of service and the nature of duties rather than statutory rules alone. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioners for regularization, ensuring parity with similarly placed employees in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a state-owned enterprise incorporated under the Companies Ordinance?
  • Does the relationship of employer and employee exist between a company and workers employed by a contractor when the company retains control over the work?
  • Is the regularization of contract employees dependent on the length of service and the nature of duties performed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Junejo vs The State2022 MLD 58 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-07
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseprinciple of consistencyfraudulent allotmentfurther inquirydocumentary evidenceanticipatory detention
  Summary & questions settled

  In this criminal matter, the petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, relating to allegations of fraudulent allotment of plots and procedural irregularities. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail when the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, investigation was complete, and co-accused had already been granted bail. The Islamabad High Court held that since the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause, grant of bail was the rule and refusal the exception, and that the petitioners were further entitled to bail on the principle of consistency as well as on the ground that the case rested on documentary evidence already in the prosecution's possession. The court laid down the principle that mere heinousness of an offence does not justify withholding bail where the case falls outside the prohibitory limb and no exceptional circumstances exist.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted as a rule when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted bail?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the ground of the heinousness of the alleged offence?
  • Does the pendency of a case involving documentary evidence already in the custody of the prosecution warrant the continued incarceration of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Ghouri vs Member Board of Revenue, etc2021 [M] C L R 275 · Lahore High Court · 2011-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and Others vs President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan &2021 SHC 1348 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-21
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitywrit jurisdictionlachespresidential immunitydismissal in liminestatutory remedies
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a constitutional petition seeking the implementation of orders passed by the Commissioner for Workman Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, dated 15.07.2010, along with interest at the KIBOR rate. The petition arrayed nine respondents, including the President of Pakistan, the Ministry of Defence, and various private entities. Upon preliminary hearing, the Court questioned the maintainability of the petition, specifically regarding the immunity granted to the President under Article 248 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the issuance of writs against private respondents, the failure to utilize statutory remedies for the implementation of orders, the appropriateness of seeking interest-based compensation within writ jurisdiction, and the issue of laches. As the petitioners' counsel failed to address these fundamental maintainability concerns, the Court dismissed the petition in limine. The judgment reaffirms that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked when statutory remedies are available, when the petition suffers from laches, or when it seeks relief against parties protected by constitutional immunity or private entities not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against the President of Pakistan given the immunity provided by Article 248 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is a writ petition the appropriate forum for the implementation of orders passed by the Commissioner for Workman Compensation?
  • Can a writ be issued against private respondents in a constitutional petition?
  • Does the failure to seek implementation of orders through prescribed statutory channels render a writ petition non-maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Abro vs The State2021 KLR Criminal Cases 163, 2021 SHC 204, 2022 MLD 1420 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-25
  criminal appealrecoverychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtprosecution evidencecontrabandacquittalchain of custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Sections 269, 270, and 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged possession of prohibited Gutka. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of the contraband beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant procedural lapses and evidentiary contradictions. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that unexplained delays in transmitting seized samples to the chemical examiner, combined with material discrepancies between the recovery memo, the chemical examiner's report, and the physical property produced in court regarding the quantity of seized packets, rendered the prosecution's case unreliable. The court emphasized that the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any single circumstance creating doubt regarding the integrity of the recovery must be resolved in favor of the accused. The failure to account for the chain of custody of the case property further undermined the prosecution's evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered contraband to a chemical examiner create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a material discrepancy between the quantity of items allegedly recovered and the quantity examined by the chemical analyst?
  • Is the failure of the prosecution to account for the custody of case property during the period between recovery and chemical analysis sufficient to warrant acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali @ Aadil vs The State2021 SHC 88 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Rawalpindi2021 PTD (Trib.) 1760 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Member, Board Of Revenue/Chief Settlement2021 PLJ Lahore 277 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram through Attorney vs Dooro and others2021 MLD 790 · Sindh Revenue Board · 2019-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Nadeem vs Chairman, Arbitration Council/ADLG2021 IHC 132 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Ashraf vs National Accountability Bureau, through Chairman Islamabad and 3 others2021 PLJ Lahore 408 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar, etc vs The State2021 LHC 4570, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 239 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-08
  qatal-e-amdself-defenceevidential burdenappreciation of evidencecriminal appealwritten statementsection 342 Cr.P.C.ocular account
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of Muhammad Akhtar and Muhammad Anser for the murder of Khadim Hussain. The prosecution alleged that the accused, armed with pistols, fired at the deceased following a dispute over photographs. The trial court convicted both appellants under Section 302(b) PPC. On appeal, the Court evaluated the ocular evidence, medical reports, and the appellants' defence. The Court found that while the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of Muhammad Akhtar, the evidence against Muhammad Anser was insufficient, particularly as no weapon was recovered from him and the investigating officer had opined he was empty-handed. Regarding Muhammad Akhtar, the Court rejected his plea of self-defence, noting that he failed to substantiate it through proper legal procedure, such as entering the witness box or filing a verified written statement. The Court held that the prosecution proved the primary fact of the killing, shifting the evidential burden to the accused to rebut the presumption of intentional murder. Consequently, the Court acquitted Muhammad Anser, maintained the conviction of Muhammad Akhtar, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for enhancement of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an accused to enter the witness box under section 340(2) Cr.P.C. prevent them from producing defence witnesses?
  • Can an accused rely on a plea of self-defence without adducing evidence to substantiate it?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused once the prosecution proves the primary fact of an unlawful killing?
  • Is a statement made under section 342 Cr.P.C. sufficient to establish a defence plea without formal evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, etc2021 LHC 3365 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Asif Zaman, etc2021 IHC 232 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal vs The State and another2022 SCMR 274, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 87 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-15
  post-arrest bailprinciple of consistencyelectronic crimesprohibitory clausefurther inquirycriminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's order denying post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was accused of offenses under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, involving the sharing of objectionable videos. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused, to whom the primary instrument of the crime was attributed, had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court observed that the maximum punishment for the alleged offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted that the co-accused had been released on bail and that the petitioner’s case was on better footing, as the device used for the offense belonged to the co-accused. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail on the principle of consistency and that the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The appeal was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the principle of consistency if a co-accused has already been granted bail?
  • Does the grant of bail depend on whether the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When does a case qualify for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1806 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-27
  murder referencebenefit of doubtchance witnessesadverse inferencematerial improvementsdelayed autopsycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of the sentence. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of eye-witnesses, the impact of a delayed autopsy, the effect of withholding natural witnesses, and the reliability of forensic evidence. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with reasonable doubt. Specifically, the Court found that the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses who made material improvements to their testimony, the autopsy was inexplicably delayed, and the prosecution failed to prove the motive or the source of light during the night-time occurrence. Furthermore, the Court drew an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 due to the prosecution's failure to examine the deceased's wife and daughter, who were present at the scene. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant, set aside the conviction, and answered the murder reference in the negative, establishing that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withholding of natural witnesses by the prosecution warrant an adverse inference under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order?
  • Can material improvements and omissions in the testimony of eye-witnesses render their evidence unreliable?
  • Does a significant delay in conducting an autopsy cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove the motive and the source of light in a night-time occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal and others vs Province of Balochistan through Secretary Irrigation and others2022 CLC 965 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal and 3 others vs Province Of Balochistan through Secretary Irrigations and others2021 PLD Balochistan 105 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmed Khan vs Federation of Pakistan and another2021 SHC 558 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmed and six others vs Mst. Nargis Nawaz and three others2021 SHC 1010 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad vs The State, etc2021 IHC 154 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-08
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausestatutory barbail as punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused-petitioner Muhammad Ahmad in respect of F.I.R. No. 314 dated 18.07.2019, registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Golra Shareef, Islamabad, concerning the dishonour of a cheque issued for the return of lease money. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the investigation is complete. The Islamabad High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The court held that since the offence carries a maximum punishment of three years and does not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and further investigation is not required, withholding bail would amount to keeping the accused behind bars as a measure of punishment, which is impermissible. The key principle laid down is that in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause, grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception, and bail cannot be used as a strategy for punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be withheld as a measure of punishment during the pendency of a trial?
  • Is continuous detention justified when the investigation has already been completed and no further recovery or investigation is required?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad Khan and others vs Secretary to The Government Of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others2021 PLJ Islamabad 247 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State and others2021 YLR 702 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-23
  post-arrest bailsuccessive bail petitionfresh groundshostile witnessesbail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition concerns a fourth application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, in a criminal case. The court examined the procedural history, noting that previous bail petitions had been dismissed either as withdrawn or on merits. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could maintain a successive bail petition based solely on the fact that two prosecution witnesses had turned hostile, without demonstrating any other fresh grounds. The court held that the mere hostility of two formal prosecution witnesses does not constitute a valid 'fresh ground' to justify the entertainment of a successive bail petition when earlier petitions have already been decided on merits. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the court emphasized that a successive bail application is not maintainable in the absence of a material change in circumstances or a genuine fresh ground. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition in limine, reaffirming the principle that repetitive bail applications without new substantive grounds are legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the hostility of prosecution witnesses constitute a valid fresh ground for a successive bail petition?
  • Is a successive bail petition maintainable when previous applications have been dismissed on merits without new grounds?
  • What is the legal requirement for maintaining a successive bail application after previous dismissals?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State and another2021 MLD 1327 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-16
  post-arrest bailnon-prohibitory clauseelectricity theftexceptional circumstancesbail in liminecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a third petition for post-arrest bail filed before the High Court by the petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, in connection with FIR No. C/52/2020 involving charges of electricity theft and related offenses. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the ground that the complainant allegedly stated he was not present at the scene. The Court dismissed the petition in limine. The core legal questions addressed were whether the petitioner could bypass the court of first instance for a fresh bail application based on new grounds, and whether bail should be granted in non-prohibitory offenses where exceptional circumstances exist. The Court held that the petitioner failed to move the trial court first regarding the new ground and that the mere statement of one witness did not negate the existence of other prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that bail is not a matter of right even in non-prohibitory offenses. The key principle laid down is that courts may decline bail in non-prohibitory cases if exceptional circumstances, such as causing colossal loss to the government exchequer, are present.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused claim bail as a matter of right if the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the existence of exceptional circumstances justify the refusal of bail in cases falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a petitioner required to approach the court of first instance for bail when a new ground arises after the dismissal of a previous bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Rana vs Pakistan Steel Mills2021 PLC 114 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2020-09-29
  recovery of arrearslabour court jurisdictionpre-determined amountindustrial relationswage disputemaintainability of petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged the dismissal of his petition by the Sindh Labour Court-IV, which had sought the recovery of arrears of wages and benefits allegedly due to him. The appellant argued that he was entitled to specific pay scales and increments based on judgments rendered in cases involving his colleagues. The respondent contested the claim, arguing that the appellant’s entitlement was disputed, the claim was time-barred, and the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction because the amount claimed was not pre-determined. The Labour Court dismissed the petition, holding that proceedings under Section 62 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 are only maintainable when the amount due is pre-determined and undisputed. The National Industrial Relations Commission upheld this decision, noting that the Labour Court’s jurisdiction under the relevant statute is limited to computing amounts already determined and does not extend to adjudicating disputed claims or fundamental questions of entitlement. Finding no illegality in the lower court's order, the Commission dismissed the appeal, affirming that disputed claims regarding wages must be resolved through appropriate forums rather than summary recovery proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Labour Court adjudicate a disputed claim for wages under Section 62 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002?
  • Is a petition for the recovery of money maintainable before a Labour Court if the amount claimed is not pre-determined?
  • Does the Labour Court have the power to determine fundamental questions of entitlement regarding disputed wage claims?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Majoka & others vs The Registrar Lahore High Court, Lahore KPK thr. Chief Secretary, Peshawar & others2021 KLR Labour & Service Cases 1, 2021 P SC 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  judicial service rulesvested rightservice quotafundamental rightsreasonable classificationconstitutional petitionstatutory amendment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, challenging a notification dated 13.05.2015 which amended the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994. The amendment effectively excluded serving Civil Judges and Senior Civil Judges from competing for the 40% quota reserved for the Bar for the position of Additional District and Sessions Judge, a right they had briefly enjoyed under a prior 2014 amendment. The core legal questions were whether this notification violated the petitioners' fundamental rights and whether the mere advertisement of vacancies under the previous criteria created a vested right for the petitioners. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the competent authority acted within its statutory powers under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The Court ruled that no vested right exists to be governed by a specific set of rules, and the amendment constituted a reasonable classification. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the restoration of the original service structure did not infringe upon any constitutional guarantees or fundamental rights of the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Does the amendment of service rules that excludes a category of candidates from a recruitment quota violate fundamental rights?
  • Does the issuance of an advertisement for recruitment create a vested right in candidates to be governed by the criteria existing at the time of advertisement?
  • Can a competent authority amend service rules to restore a previous recruitment scheme without infringing upon the rights of serving civil servants?
  • Is the classification between members of the Bar and serving judicial officers for recruitment purposes a reasonable classification under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Alias Baba and another vs The State and others2021 YLR 2001 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-07
  murdercriminal appealchance witnessbenefit of the doubtocular accountmedical evidencepost-mortem delayballistic report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Narowal, convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to imprisonment for life. Simultaneously, a criminal revision was filed seeking enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the ocular account, the credibility of chance witnesses, uncorroborated motive, and unexplained delay in conducting the post-mortem examination. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eye-witnesses at the crime scene, rendering them unconvincing chance witnesses whose testimony was fraught with contradictions and improvements. The Court ruled that corroborative forensic evidence alone cannot sustain a conviction when the primary ocular testimony is disbelieved. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt, while the revision petition for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses can be relied upon to maintain a conviction on a capital charge without a convincing and confidence-inspiring reason for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Can corroborative evidence, such as a positive forensic report matching crime empties with recovered weapons, sustain a conviction when the primary ocular account has been disbelieved?
  • Does an unexplained delay in conducting the post-mortem examination create a reasonable possibility that time was consumed to procure and plant eye-witnesses?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding their guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal & others vs The Secretary Establishment Division2021 PLJ SC 463, 2021 SCP 316, 2021 SCMR 1569 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-08-17
  ultra viresreinstatementcivil servicefundamental rightslegislative competencenon-obstante clausepast and closed transactionconstitutional interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the constitutionality of the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010, which mandated the reinstatement and regularization of dismissed employees across various government and autonomous bodies. The core legal questions were whether the Act, specifically its non-obstante clause, could override constitutional provisions, and whether the legislation violated fundamental rights and the constitutional framework governing civil service. The Supreme Court held that the Act was ultra vires of the Constitution. The Court ruled that the legislature cannot, through legal fiction or non-obstante clauses, override the Constitution, violate fundamental rights under Articles 4, 9, and 25, or circumvent the recruitment framework established under Articles 240 and 242. The Court established the principle that legislation cannot be person-specific or class-specific to confer undue favors, nor can it nullify judicial decisions. Consequently, beneficiaries still in service must revert to their pre-Act status, though monetary benefits received for service rendered remain intact. Cases involving retired or deceased beneficiaries were deemed past and closed transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a non-obstante clause in a statute override the provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, and 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can the legislature, through a deeming clause, confer the status of a civil servant upon employees of corporations without complying with recruitment rules?
  • Are benefits conferred under an unconstitutional statute considered past and closed transactions if the beneficiaries are still in service?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afan vs International Islamic University Islamabad, etc2021 IHC 250 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adrees vs District & Sessions Judge2021 PLJ Lahore 628 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adnan vs The State2021 YLR 1594 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-02
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtlast seen evidencedying declarationchance witnessappreciation of evidencedeath sentence confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for the murder of three individuals. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the reliance on last-seen evidence, a dying declaration, and alleged recoveries. The High Court found the prosecution's case riddled with significant doubts, including the status of the complainant as a chance witness, the unreliability of the last-seen evidence due to darkness and lack of corroboration, and contradictions regarding the dying declaration. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigation appeared dishonest, particularly concerning the recovery of the murder weapon and the planting of evidence. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof. The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reiterating the golden principle of criminal jurisprudence that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the accused's guilt, the benefit of that doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a witness to immediately transport a critically injured relative to the hospital cast doubt on their presence at the scene?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn under Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when a material witness is given up by the prosecution?
  • Is a statement recorded several days before death, where the declarant remained alive, admissible as a dying declaration?
  • Does the recovery of a murder weapon from a residence, unsupported by independent mashir witnesses, constitute reliable evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adnan vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry2021 PTD 1309 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adnan and another vs The State and others2021 SCMR 16, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-24
  Criminal appealMurder convictionAcquittalBenefit of doubtWitness credibilityPost-mortem delayMotiveEnhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned a criminal appeal filed by Muhammad Adnan against his conviction under Section 302(b) PPC, initially sentenced to death by the trial court and later converted to life imprisonment by the High Court. A connected criminal petition sought enhancement of his sentence. The core legal question revolved around the sufficiency and credibility of evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies, the motive, and procedural aspects like the delay in post-mortem examination. The Supreme Court observed significant inconsistencies in the statements and conduct of the complainant and eye-witnesses, an unexplained nine-hour delay in conducting the post-mortem, and the appellate court's disbelief of the motive. Concluding that the prosecution's case was doubtful and did not appeal to common sense, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant. Consequently, the petition for enhancement of sentence was dismissed.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adil vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 295 · Lahore High Court · 2020-04-20
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayspeedy trialfake power of attorneydelay in conclusion of trialfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 136 of 2012 registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging the preparation of a fake general power of attorney to transfer immovable property. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial. The Lahore High Court held that since the delay in concluding the trial was not occasioned by any act or omission of the petitioner, and given that he had no criminal antecedents and had already spent a significant period incarcerated without trial conclusion, he was entitled to bail as a matter of right. The petition was accordingly allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail upon furnishing appropriate security bonds. The key principle laid down is that delayed trial not attributable to the accused entitles them to bail as a fundamental right.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the trial is delayed without any fault on their part?
  • Whether prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial constitutes a ground for grant of bail?
  • Does a lack of criminal antecedents support the concession of post-arrest bail in cases of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abideen vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 78 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-06-24
  quashing of proceedingsanti-corruptionillegal investigationdelay in trialsection 561-A Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the acquittal of the petitioner from charges under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 in FIR No. 26/2014. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of a petition for quashing/acquittal during ongoing trial proceedings, alongside contentions regarding delay in trial, defective investigation by a Sub-Inspector, and lack of incriminating evidence. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that delay in mass corruption cases cannot be taken lightly to warrant acquittal, that procedural irregularities in investigation do not vitiate the trial, and that a petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not maintainable while the trial is actively in progress. The court laid down the principle that procedural defects during investigation do not demolish the prosecution case and that quashing petitions should not prematurely interfere with ongoing trials involving serious corruption charges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable while a criminal trial is in progress?
  • Does an irregularity or illegality committed during the course of an investigation vitiate the trial?
  • Can delay in the conclusion of a trial involving mass level corruption serve as a valid ground for acquittal?
  • Whether an investigation conducted by an officer below the prescribed rank without magisterial permission renders subsequent proceedings a nullity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abid vs Gomal University, D.I.Khan through Chancellor and others2021 PHC 90 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas, ASI vs Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura etc2021 PLJ Lahore 725 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs The State, etc2021 LHC 770 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs Raja Muhammad Ishaq2021 LHC 5363 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhamamd Imran vs Additional Sessions Judge Okara and 2 othersPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1804 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-06
  juvenile justiceage determinationossification testmedical board reportconstitutional petitiontrial court order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, which dismissed the petitioner's application seeking to be declared a juvenile. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, at the time of the alleged occurrence, was a juvenile, based on conflicting evidence regarding his age. The petitioner relied on a birth certificate and a school leaving certificate to claim minority, while the prosecution relied on a medical board's ossification test report, which estimated the petitioner's age at 19 years. Upon review, the High Court observed that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claims with supporting evidence for the school certificate or birth certificate. Conversely, the medical board, comprising six medical officers, concluded based on physical appearance and radiological examination that the petitioner was approximately 19 years old. The Court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court's order. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that in the absence of conclusive documentary proof, the findings of a medical board regarding age determination are to be given due weight.

  Questions settled

  • Is a medical board's ossification test report sufficient to determine the age of an accused when documentary evidence is unsubstantiated?
  • Does the failure to produce supporting evidence for a school leaving certificate or birth certificate invalidate a claim of juvenility?
  • Can a trial court's order dismissing a juvenile status application be upheld if it aligns with medical evidence and lacks perversity?
  Read full judgment →
• Mughal Foundation Hospital through Mirza Iftikhar Qayyum, Administrator2021 SC AJK 10 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-06-17Read full judgment →
• Mudassir vs The State and another2021 MLD 2093 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-01
  post-arrest bailmurderprohibitory clausetentative assessmentFSL reportprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Mudassir, sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an FIR alleging he shot and killed the complainant's brother. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the material available on record. Upon tentative assessment, the Court observed that the complainant had promptly charged the petitioner in the FIR, and this version was corroborated by medical evidence, the recovery of blood-stained earth, and blood-stained garments. Although the petitioner argued that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report indicated the recovered empties were fired from different weapons, the Court held that this did not, at the bail stage, entitle the accused to relief, as a prima facie case existed. The Court declined to delve into the merits of the FSL report to avoid prejudicing the trial. Consequently, the Court held that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and dismissed the bail petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does an FSL report indicating that recovered empties were fired from different weapons automatically entitle an accused to bail in a murder case?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and there is a prima facie case?
  • Should a court comment on the merits of forensic evidence during the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Mudassar vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1683 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-15
  murder convictiondeath sentence commutationocular evidencemedical evidenceforensic reportcriminal appealquantum of sentenceunproven motive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular evidence, the corroboration by medical and forensic reports, and the proportionality of the death sentence. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular account of the complainant and injured witness consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and forensic reports, despite the prosecution failing to substantiate the alleged motive. However, the Court held that the death sentence was not appropriate in this instance. The ratio established is that where the motive remains unproven and the accused committed the offense with a single shot without repetition, the imposition of capital punishment is not justified. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, noting that such extenuating circumstances warrant a reduction in the quantum of sentence to meet the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prove the motive behind a murder necessitate the acquittal of the accused?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when the accused fired only a single shot?
  • Is the testimony of closely related eye-witnesses sufficient to maintain a conviction if they remain consistent during cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Mudassar and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1334 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-15
  murder referencecommutation of sentenceocular evidencemedical corroborationunproven motivecapital punishmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder and related offences. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction and whether the death penalty is appropriate given the circumstances. The Court held that the ocular account, corroborated by medical evidence and forensic reports, was sufficient to maintain the conviction under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. However, the Court found that the prosecution failed to substantiate the alleged motive and noted that the appellant fired only a single shot without repetition. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that while a conviction may be maintained based on consistent ocular and medical evidence even if the motive is unproven, the absence of a proven motive and the lack of aggravating circumstances (such as repetition of fire) constitute extenuating factors warranting the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment. The conviction was upheld, but the sentence was modified accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained if the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive?
  • Does the failure to prove motive constitute an extenuating circumstance for the commutation of a death sentence?
  • Is a single gunshot without repetition a relevant factor in determining whether to impose the death penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Mudasir Nazar & 35 others vs Bank of Khyber through M.D, Peshawar & 32021 PHC 198, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 668 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-17
  regularization of servicessham outsourcingcontract employeesfundamental rightsservice protectioncore banking functionsprinciple of parity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a writ petition filed by contract employees of the Bank of Khyber seeking regularization of their services, alleging that the bank's outsourcing arrangement via third-party contractors was a sham designed to deny them service protection and fundamental rights. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, despite being hired through contractors, were effectively employees of the Bank of Khyber entitled to regularization based on the nature of their duties and the principle of parity. The Court held that the outsourcing arrangement was a sham, as the petitioners were performing core banking functions, were subject to the bank's supervision, and were utilized wherever the bank required, rather than being restricted to specific outsourced projects. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions, declaring the petitioners to be employees of the bank. The key principle laid down is that where an organization exercises control and supervision over workers, and those workers perform core functions of the organization, the outsourcing arrangement is considered a sham, and the workers are entitled to regularization as employees of the principal organization, regardless of the contractual facade.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees hired through a third-party contractor to perform core functions of a bank are entitled to regularization as employees of that bank?
  • Does the performance of core banking functions by outsourced staff render an outsourcing arrangement a sham?
  • Can a bank deny service protection to employees by labeling them as contract workers while exercising direct control and supervision over their duties?
  • Is the principle of parity applicable to contract employees performing duties identical to those of regular staff?
  Read full judgment →
• Mubeen Ahmed vs The State and another2021 PLD Islamabad 431 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-30
  post-arrest bailsexual abuseprohibitory clausechild protectionSection 377Acriminal law amendmenttentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought post-arrest bail for an accused charged under Section 377B of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for sexual abuse of a minor. The petitioner argued that the medical evidence showed no signs of violence, the FIR was delayed, and the complainant had a motive of personal enmity. Conversely, the State contended that the offence of sexual abuse under Section 377A does not require penetration or physical injury, and that the legislative intent behind the 2018 amendment to Section 377B was to categorize such offences as non-bailable and within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that the offence of sexual abuse is distinct from traditional offences requiring intercourse, and that the legislative intent is to protect vulnerable children. Finding sufficient material connecting the petitioner to the offence, including the victim's statement and the mother's eyewitness account, the Court dismissed the bail petition, emphasizing that the prohibitory clause of Section 497 applies, and that the absence of physical injury does not negate the commission of the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of sexual abuse under Section 377A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 require the consummation of sexual intercourse or physical violence?
  • Does the offence of sexual abuse under Section 377B of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is the testimony of a child victim admissible in cases of sexual abuse where there is no background of grudge between the parties?
  • Can the delay in reporting an offence of sexual abuse be considered a ground for granting bail in light of the victim's vulnerability?
  Read full judgment →
• Mubashir Ahmad Almas vs Province Of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and 8 others2021 PLD Lahore 720 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-09Read full judgment →
• Mubashar Javed etc vs Province of Punjab etc2021 LHC 7944, 2022 PLD Lahore 817 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-17
  local governmentterm of officejudicial estoppeldissolution of local councilsconstitutional petitiontenurePunjab Local Government Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by elected representatives of local governments in Punjab seeking an extension in their term of office equivalent to the period their local governments remained dissolved under Section 3 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2019, before that section was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Asad Ali Khan case. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the petition in light of pending implementation and contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court, the distinction between 'term' and 'tenure' of elected representatives, and whether the five-year term under Section 30(1) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 is date-specific, time-specific, and extendable. The Lahore High Court held that the petitions were not maintainable due to parallel proceedings before the apex court and were barred by judicial estoppel. On merits, the Court held that the five-year term of office stipulated under Section 30(1) of the Act of 2013 is fixed, definite, and commences strictly from the date of the first meeting, and cannot be extended to compensate for the period of dissolution. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable when implementation and contempt proceedings regarding the same matter are already pending before the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Does the doctrine of judicial estoppel preclude litigants from taking inconsistent positions regarding the expiry date of their term across different judicial forums?
  • What is the distinction between 'term of office' and 'tenure of office' in the context of elected local government representatives?
  • Is the five-year term of office provided under Section 30(1) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 extendable by adding the period during which the local government remained dissolved?
  Read full judgment →
• Muallim vs State2021 YLR 841 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-30
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoverychain of custodyspeedy trialseizing officer authorityprocedural infirmity
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 10 kilograms of charas from a vehicle. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the quantity of narcotics recovered, whether the delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory created doubt in the prosecution's case, and whether the seizing officer, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, possessed the requisite authority to conduct the seizure under the relevant narcotics legislation. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the petitioner had been incarcerated for a significant period without the commencement of trial, violating his right to a speedy trial. Furthermore, the Court found that the four-day delay in dispatching samples to the laboratory broke the chain of custody, and the seizing officer, being below the rank of Sub-Inspector, lacked the statutory authority to effect the seizure under the applicable provincial narcotics law. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed, emphasizing that the heinousness of the offense alone does not disentitle an accused to bail when the prosecution's case suffers from procedural infirmities.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in sending narcotics samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory affect the prosecution's case for bail?
  • Is an Assistant Sub-Inspector authorized to seize narcotics under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019?
  • Can the heinousness of an offense alone justify the denial of bail when the trial is not likely to commence in the near future?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst: Jehan Pasa vs State2021 PHC 72 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-25
  explosive substanceconscious knowledgecriminal liabilityrecoveryacquittalanti-terrorismcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under sections 5 and 6 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Explosive Substances Act, 2013 and section 7(ff) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for possessing an explosive substance. The core legal question was whether a person carrying a container with an explosive substance can be convicted without proof of conscious knowledge regarding the presence of the prohibited material. The Peshawar High Court held that mere recovery of a container holding illegal items from an individual is insufficient for conviction unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused possessed conscious knowledge of the contents. The court established the principle that in the absence of evidence proving conscious knowledge of the illicit nature of the recovered item, an accused carrier cannot be held criminally liable, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person be convicted for possessing an explosive substance found in a container without proof of conscious knowledge?
  • Is the mere recovery of a banned item from a carrier sufficient to establish criminal liability?
  • Does the prosecution need to prove that an accused carrier was aware of the contents of a recovered box before securing a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst.Qurat Ain Laghari @ Ainee vs Civil Judge & J.M. VII Hyd & Others2021 SHC 1160 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-03
  dishonour of chequeSection 489-F PPCB-class reportmagisterial cognizancemala fidematrimonial disputecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges the order of a Magistrate who took cognizance of an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite an investigation report recommending the case be disposed of as 'B' class (false). The core legal question was whether the Magistrate erred in ignoring the investigation's findings regarding the absence of a valid underlying transaction and the forensic evidence of a forged signature on the dishonoured cheque. The High Court held that the Magistrate’s order was unsustainable as it failed to rebut the investigation's findings and ignored that the mere dishonour of a cheque does not constitute an offence under Section 489-F unless it was issued dishonestly for a loan or obligation. The Court emphasized that the complainant failed to prove the underlying transaction, and the suspicious nature of the documents, combined with the timing of the FIR following a matrimonial dispute, indicated mala fides. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, accepted the investigation report, and disposed of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere dishonour of a cheque constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of an underlying obligation?
  • Can a Magistrate take cognizance of a case after an investigation report recommends it be disposed of as 'B' class without providing reasons to rebut the investigation's findings?
  • Is an FIR registered after the initiation of a matrimonial dispute between the parties indicative of mala fides?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohran wife of Fayyaz b/c Sheikh vs The State2021 SHC 238 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-28
  reduction of sentencenarcoticscharassuckling babyindependent witnesseschemical examiner reportlenient view
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Special Judge Narcotics (MCTC), Tando Adam, which convicted the female appellant for possession of 1050 grams of charas and sentenced her to five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100,000. At the outset, the appellant's counsel did not press the appeal on merits but prayed for a reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, pointing out that she is a female with a suckling baby and no prior convictions. The court observed that the police failed to associate independent witnesses despite prior information, and that only 50 grams of the alleged contraband were sent for chemical examination. Considering these circumstances, along with the appellant's gender, suckling infant, and jail time already served, the High Court found a case for leniency. Consequently, the court reduced her sentence to the time already undergone and decreased the fine to Rs. 10,000, disposing of the appeal with benefit under Section 382-B Cr.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sentence for possession of narcotics can be reduced to the period already undergone on humanitarian grounds such as being a female with a suckling baby?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses despite prior information affect the assessment of sentence severity in narcotics cases?
  • Can a court reduce the sentence and fine awarded under narcotics laws where only a fraction of the recovered substance was sent for chemical analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zakia Ilyas Raja vs State Life Insurance Corporation Of Pakistan and others2021 CLD 1388 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida vs Learned A.D.J Matiari & others2021 SHC 126 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida Parveen vs Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi and 5 othersPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1328 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-02
  cancellation reportprivate complaintinherent jurisdictiondischarge of accusedrevisional jurisdictioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi. The petitioner sought to set aside a revisional order that had accepted a police cancellation report, thereby discharging the accused respondents. The core legal question was whether the revisional court erred in law by accepting the police's cancellation report and discharging the accused, despite the petitioner's allegations of biased investigation and collusion between the police and the accused. The High Court held that the revisional court had passed a well-reasoned and speaking order based on the findings of the investigating officer, which had been verified by senior police officials and the public prosecutor. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, noting that the investigation was based on sound reasoning regarding the non-occurrence of the alleged incident. The Court affirmed that if a complainant remains aggrieved by the acceptance of a cancellation report, the appropriate legal remedy is to file a private complaint rather than invoking inherent jurisdiction to challenge the discharge order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with a revisional order that accepts a police cancellation report if the order is well-reasoned?
  • Is a private complaint the appropriate remedy for a complainant aggrieved by the acceptance of a police cancellation report?
  • Does the acceptance of a cancellation report by a revisional court constitute a valid discharge of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida Parveen vs Lamrey Ceramics (Pvt.) Limited and others2021 CLD 967 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida Haroon vs Muhammad Ashique and another2021 CLC 120 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Um-e-Kalsoom, etc vs Additional District Judge, etc2021 IHC 106 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tasleem Kausar and others vs The State2021 YLR 1440 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-27
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausejurisdiction of trial courtcriminal misconductBenazir Income Support Programbail for womenSection 497 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns pre-arrest bail applications filed by female government teachers accused of fraudulently obtaining Benazir Income Support Program funds by concealing their employment status. The core legal question involved the determination of the appropriate trial forum, specifically whether the offences fell under the jurisdiction of a Special Court (Anti-Corruption) or an ordinary Magistrate, given the conflicting orders from lower courts regarding the applicability of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The High Court, noting that the jurisdictional issue was pending adjudication in a separate proceeding, declined to rule on the forum of trial. However, the Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail because the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the applicants were women, and the prosecution evidence was documentary, precluding any risk of tampering. The key principle laid down is that where the jurisdictional status of a trial court is sub judice, bail may be granted based on the nature of the offence and the status of the accused, without prejudice to the eventual determination of the trial forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of cheating and forgery by a government servant in a private capacity necessarily attract the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947?
  • Can a court grant pre-arrest bail when the issue of trial jurisdiction is pending before a higher forum?
  • Are offences under sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tameezan and others vs Muhammad Sharif2021 CLC 25 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-29
  ex parte decreespecific performancesubstituted servicelimitationfair trialnatural justicecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from an ex parte decree passed in a suit for specific performance instituted nearly thirty-seven years after the alleged execution of a receipt on plain paper. The petitioners challenged the ex parte proceedings and the subsequent decree, which the Trial Court had dismissed on the grounds of limitation. The Lahore High Court observed that the Trial Court had erroneously resorted to substituted service without evidence that the defendants were avoiding service or that the process server's requirements were met. Furthermore, the Court held that the Trial Court failed to consider significant legal and factual questions, including the limitation period and the locus standi of the parties, before passing the ex parte decree. Emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the High Court set aside the impugned orders. It remanded the matter, directing the Trial Court to re-decide the application for setting aside the ex parte decree after allowing the parties to lead evidence and settling the relevant issues.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order substituted service without first establishing that the defendant is avoiding service?
  • Is a trial court required to consider the merits of the original lis when deciding an application to set aside an ex parte decree?
  • Does the summary rejection of an application to set aside an ex parte decree without allowing evidence violate the right to a fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tahmina Ansari vs Rafique Ahmed alias Gulzar Lakho and 3 others2021 YLR 1194 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tahira Begum and 2 others vs Mst. Nasira Ansari2021 SHC 450 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surriya Bibi vs Muhammad Ali Qureshi and 2 others2021 CLC 566 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sulli and others vs Shera and others2021 PLJ Lahore 479, 2021 YLR 860 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughran Bibi vs Ghulam Muhammad and others2021 CLC 1778 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughran and another vs The State2021 SCMR 109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-27
  reduction of sentencecannabiscontraband carriersentence already undergonereformation and rehabilitationcriminal justice systemmitigating circumstancesmodification of fine
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the concurrent conviction of the appellant for carrying a cache of 10 kg of cannabis in a public vehicle. The appellant did not press the challenge against her conviction but sought a further reduction of sentence to the period already undergone along with a modification of the fine. The primary legal consideration was whether the sentence could be further mitigated based on mitigating circumstances and the reformative purpose of the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court observed that the contraband attributed to the appellant did not exceed 10 kg, placing her case outside the statutory barrier of a mandatory minimum sentence. Finding that the appellant was merely a hapless carrier rather than the principal controller of the narcotics, and having served over six years alongside the death of her co-accused in jail, the Court held that the primary objective of criminal justice is reformation and rehabilitation rather than vengeance. Consequently, the Court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone and modifying the fine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the primary objective of the criminal justice system is offender reformation and rehabilitation rather than retribution or vengeance?
  • Can a convict's sentence be reduced to the period already undergone when the quantity of recovered contraband falls outside the statutory minimum sentence threshold?
  • Whether an accused person's status as a mere hapless carrier and the period of imprisonment already served constitute valid grounds for mitigation of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sitwat Teacher and others vs Chairman Board Of Governors, Peshawar Public School & College and 2 others2021 PLJ Peshawar 45 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Sheedan Begum etc vs Muhammad Usman Khan etc2021 LHC 4844 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan Naseem etc vs Nasir Mehmood etc2021 PLJ Lahore 304 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan Mai (deceased) through L.Rs., etc vs Khuda Bakhsh and others2021 LHC 5423, 2022 YLR 147 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Bibi vs Siraj Din and 2 others2021 MLD 808 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahida Parveen and another vs Union Council Jaswal through Chairman and Secretary and 6 others2021 PLD Lahore 783 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahida Choudhary vs Regional Police Officer, Rawalpindi and 62021 PLD Lahore 805 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahida Chaudhary vs Regional Police Officer & 6 others2021 LHC 2939 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shaheen Bibi vs Saeed Ahmed Rana and others2020 YLR 2501, 2020 PLJ Lahore 417, 2022 KLR Civil Cases 306 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shah Bano and Others vs The D.G SBCA and Others2021 SHC 334 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shagzana Walayat vs Mst. Shabanam Tabassum and others2021 CLC 1761 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shabina Firdous vs Latif Siddique & 02 others2022 LHC 1613, 2022 PLJ Lahore 532 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Seema vs Wajid Ali Shah and othersPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1742, 2022 CLC 709, 2022 PCr. LJ 849 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-14
  khuladissolution of marriagebigamysecond marriagecriminal proceedingsfamily lawbona fide belief
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from a consolidated set of three cases involving a family dispute over a khula decree, a subsequent dismissal of the wife's suit upon remand, a criminal case filed by the husband under Section 494 PPC regarding the wife's second marriage, and related criminal proceedings. The core legal question centered on whether a second marriage contracted by a wife after obtaining a decree of khula can be treated as an offence under Section 494 PPC when the initial khula decree was later set aside upon remand, and whether criminal proceedings for bigamy and zina can be sustained in such circumstances. The Sindh High Court held that the wife's act of remarrying was done bona fide under the belief of a valid khula decree, and technical defects or remand orders in the civil litigation should not criminalize her conduct or override her substantive right to khula. The court laid down the principle that law favours rights over procedure, that a woman's right to khula is based on her deep disliking to live with the husband, and that technical procedural setbacks in family litigation cannot be weaponized by a husband to harass the wife through criminal prosecutions like bigamy or zina.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second marriage contracted by a wife after obtaining a decree of khula constitutes bigamy under Section 494 PPC if the khula decree is subsequently set aside upon remand?
  • Can technical defects or procedural dismissals in family court litigation undo a rightful act of remarriage performed under a bona fide belief following a khula decree?
  • Whether criminal proceedings regarding zina and bigamy can be sustained against a wife when her family court matter involves a bona fide dispute over khula?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samrana Nawaz, etc vs MCB Bank Ltd., etc2021 PLD Supreme Court 581, 2021 P SC 795, 2021 SCP 118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-16
  Order XXI Rule 90 CPCAuction saleObjection petitionMandatory depositBinding precedentLarger BenchInterpretation of statuteCivil procedureExecution of decreeJudicial discipline
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the interpretation of the second proviso to Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), specifically whether an applicant objecting to an auction sale must deposit an amount not exceeding 20% of the sale sum or furnish security without a prior court direction. The Supreme Court noted a conflict with a previous three-member Bench decision in *Habib and Company v. MCB (PLD 2020 SC 227)*, which held the 20% deposit mandatory without a court order. The current two-member Bench disagreed with this interpretation, finding that the phrase "as the Court may direct" implies a prior judicial determination of the amount or security. However, bound by the doctrine of binding precedent, the two-member Bench could not overrule a decision of a co-equal or larger Bench. Consequently, the Court referred the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for the constitution of a Bench larger than a three-member Bench to reconsider the interpretation of the proviso and the earlier ruling, emphasizing the need for certainty and consistency in judicial decisions.

  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina Naz and others vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others2021 PLJ Islamabad 202, 2021 PLD Islamabad 187 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina vs Province of Sindh and 06 others2021 SHC 224 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Ramzan vs The StatePLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 80, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 253, 2021 SCMR 451, 2021 SCP 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-06
  narcoticschain of custodysafe transmissionchemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtcharascriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 45 kilograms of charas concealed in electronic appliances. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution successfully established a secure chain of custody for the seized narcotics. The Court observed significant gaps: the warehouse in-charge was not produced to testify to safe custody; the individual who delivered the samples to the laboratory was not clearly identified; and the testimony of the recovery officer contradicted the laboratory report regarding the mode of delivery. The Court held that the chain of custody—from seizure to laboratory analysis—must be transparent, recorded, and unbroken to ensure evidence integrity. Since the prosecution failed to prove safe transmission and custody, the Chemical Examiner's report was rendered unreliable. Consequently, the Court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction, and ordered her release.

  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Bibi alias Saeedi vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1677 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-15
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelayed FIRdying declarationcommon intentioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Mst. Sajida Bibi, who was accused of murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the FIR and the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail. The court observed that the eleven-day delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained, suggesting deliberation. Furthermore, the court noted that the victim's daughter had initially reported the incident as committed by an unknown person, and the police failed to record the victim's statement despite her surviving for eleven days post-incident. Consequently, the court determined that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case suffers from unexplained delays and significant evidentiary omissions, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry and should be admitted to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the scope of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the failure of police to record the statement of a victim who survived for several days after the incident a ground for bail?
  Read full judgment →