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.

• Mst. Saira Fatima Sadozai vs D.I.G. Investigation, etc2021 LHC 7813, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 160 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saira Arif vs Amir Ali2021 LHC 4723, 2022 YLR 1051 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saima Mai vs DPO, etc2021 LHC 3984, 2022 CLC 134 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saima & another vs Federation of Pakistan2021 SHC 186 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Bibi etc vs Addl. District Judge etc2021 LHC 3454, 2022 CLC 762 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Bano vs Home Department Govt. of Punjab through its Secretary and others2021 P SC 445, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 263, 2021 SCP 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  mental illnessschizophreniadeath sentencecompetence to stand trialunsound mindmitigating circumstancemedical boardconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This landmark judgment by a larger bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses crucial legal and medical questions regarding culpability under section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code, competence to face trial under Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the execution of death row convicts suffering from severe mental illness. Examining the cases of three condemned prisoners—Imdad Ali, Mst. Kaneezan Bibi, and Ghulam Abbas—the court held that while the burden of proving legal insanity at the time of the offence rests on the accused, trial courts must not form subjective views on an accused's mental competence without objective material and expert medical evaluation through a constituted Medical Board. Furthermore, the court ruled that executing a mentally ill condemned prisoner who lacks the capacity to comprehend the rationale and reasons behind their punishment violates principles of justice and human dignity. Consequently, the court converted the death sentences of the petitioners to imprisonment for life based on medical diagnoses of schizophrenia and intellectual impairment, alongside periods of prolonged incarceration, and issued extensive structural directives to governments and judicial academies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a mentally ill condemned prisoner should be executed?
  • How should the trial Court deal with the plea of an accused that he/she was suffering from mental illness at the time of commission of offence?
  • How should the trial Court deal with the claim that due to mental illness, an accused is incapable of making his/her defence?
  • Whether the trial Court can form a prima facie subjective view regarding the incapability of the accused to make his/her defence without seeking the opinion of the medical expert?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Bano and another vs Home Department Government Of Punjab through Secretary and others2021 PLD Supreme Court 488 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-07
  Mental illnessDeath penaltyCompetence to stand trialExecution of sentenceCriminal culpabilityUnsoundness of mindForensic mental healthMedical BoardPrison RulesConstitutional rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court addressed critical questions concerning the culpability, competence to face trial, and execution of sentence for accused persons and convicts suffering from mental illness, considering modern jurisprudential, legislative, and medical developments. The Court held that for a plea of mental illness at the time of offense (Section 84 PPC), the onus of proof lies with the accused, but all evidence must be considered. Regarding an accused's incapacity to make a defense due to mental illness (Sections 464, 465 Cr.P.C.), if the court forms an objective prima facie opinion, an inquiry involving a Medical Board's expert opinion is mandatory. Crucially, the Court ruled that a mentally ill condemned prisoner who is unable to comprehend the rationale behind their punishment should not be executed, provided a Medical Board certifies this condition. The judgment directed federal and provincial governments to amend relevant laws, substitute terms like "unsound mind" with "mental disorder/illness," establish forensic mental health facilities, and constitute specialized Medical Boards. Consequently, Imdad Ali's and Mst. Kaneezan Bibi's death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment, and Ghulam Abbas's execution was stayed pending a fresh mercy petition considering his mental health.

  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sadaqat Abbasi vs Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education, Aj&K and 8 others2022 PLJ AJ&K 103 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Mst. Saba Akhtar and others vs Imran Ashraf and others2021 PLJ AJ&K 25, 2021 CLC 1165 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-09-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana vs Rehmanullah and another2021 SC MR 1544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-26
  criminal appealdouble murderappreciation of evidenceocular accountacquittalmiscarriage of justiceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal appeal against a High Court judgment that overturned the conviction and death sentence of the respondent for the double murder of two individuals. The incident occurred in broad daylight following a dispute over fodder. The petitioner challenges the High Court's acquittal, arguing that the ocular account and investigative findings were consistent and established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner contends that the High Court erred by placing disproportionate reliance on peripheral issues, such as minor omissions by the investigating officer and the witnesses' inability to specify weapon calibers, rather than focusing on the substantive evidence. The core legal question is whether the High Court's appreciation of evidence was legally sound or if it resulted in a miscarriage of justice by ignoring the established norms of criminal evidence. The Supreme Court found that the contentions merited consideration, granted leave to appeal to reappraise the entire evidence, and issued bailable warrants for the respondent's appearance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court's reliance on minor investigative omissions and witness inconsistencies regarding weapon caliber constitute a valid ground for overturning a conviction based on ocular evidence?
  • What are the parameters for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal against an acquittal judgment in a murder case?
  • Does the failure to confront witnesses with site plan entries render their testimony unreliable in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Bangash vs Chairman, National Accountability Bureau2021 P Cr. L J 1813 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-20
  National Accountability BureauCall-up noticePre-arrest bailSelf-incriminationDue processProcedural fairnessSummons
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional petition challenging call-up notices issued by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and a request for pre-arrest bail. The core legal question was whether the impugned notices complied with the procedural safeguards established by the superior courts regarding the NAB's power to summon individuals. The court held that the notices were legally deficient as they failed to provide necessary details, such as the nature of allegations and the capacity in which the petitioner was summoned. Consequently, the court set aside the notices. Regarding the bail plea, the court noted the NAB prosecutor's assurance that there was no immediate intention to arrest the petitioner, thus disposing of the bail request without a formal order. The key principle laid down is that NAB, when exercising its power to call for information under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, must act reasonably and fairly, ensuring that call-up notices explicitly state the allegations, the identity of the complainant, the specific documents required, and the capacity of the person summoned, to avoid harassment and ensure due process.

  Questions settled

  • What specific information must be included in a call-up notice issued by the National Accountability Bureau to ensure it meets legal requirements?
  • Does the National Accountability Bureau have the authority to compel an accused person to provide evidence against themselves?
  • Under what circumstances can a court dispose of a pre-arrest bail petition without passing a formal confirmation order?
  • Is the power of the National Accountability Bureau to call for information subject to the principles of reasonableness and fairness?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rubina Adnan vs Muhammad Hassan Jamal Ilyas and others2021 MLD 490 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Riffat Bano vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 698 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Riffat Bano vs Province of Sindh & others2021 SHC 980 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Reshma vs Mst. Shabana2022 YLR 944 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehmat and others vs Mst. Zubaida Begum and others2021 SCMR 1534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-19
  specific performanceagreement to sellreciprocal promisestime is not the essencebona fide purchaserlis pendenspart performanceadmitted facts
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a long-standing property dispute involving a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell executed in April 1973. The core legal question concerned whether time was the essence of the contract and whether a vendor who failed to perform reciprocal obligations could rescind the agreement and transfer the property to a subsequent purchaser. The Supreme Court held that time was not the essence of the contract, and since the vendor failed to perform her reciprocal obligations to procure necessary clearance documents under the agreement, she could not legally rescind or revoke the contract after accepting 80% of the sale consideration and handing over physical possession to the vendee. The Court affirmed that admitted facts need not be proved under Article 30 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and that a prior agreement coupled with possession in part performance ranks superior to a subsequent registered sale deed executed with notice. The appeal was dismissed, and the subsequent transactions were declared null and void as hit by lis pendens, subject to the vendee depositing the remaining balance based on the current valuation table.

  Questions settled

  • Whether time can be considered the essence of a contract to sell when no cutoff date is fixed and the agreement contains reciprocal obligations?
  • Can a vendor rescind an agreement to sell after receiving a substantial part of the consideration and handing over possession, when the vendor has failed to perform her own reciprocal obligations?
  • Does a prior agreement to sell accompanied by delivery of possession and part performance take precedence over a subsequent registered sale deed?
  • What is the effect of the dismissal of a prior suit for possession under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on a subsequent claim by a successor-in-interest?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehmat & others vs Mst. Zubaida Begum & others2021 P SC 1499, 2021 SCMR 1534, 2021 SCP 338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-19
  specific performanceagreement to sellpart performancereciprocal promiseslis pendenstime is the essencebona fide purchaser
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a dispute over the specific performance of an agreement to sell property executed in 1973. The core legal questions concerned whether time was of the essence in the contract, whether the vendor could unilaterally rescind the agreement, and the validity of a subsequent sale deed executed by the vendor in favor of a third party. The Supreme Court held that time was not the essence of the contract, as the vendor failed to perform necessary reciprocal obligations, such as obtaining required clearances. Consequently, the vendor could not legally rescind the agreement after accepting a substantial portion of the sale consideration and delivering possession to the vendee. The Court affirmed that admitted facts need not be proven and that the vendee’s possession, held in part performance, took precedence over the subsequent registered sale deed, which was further invalidated by the principle of lis pendens. The Court directed the vendee to pay the remaining balance of the sale consideration to finalize the specific performance, thereby upholding the lower appellate court's decree in favor of the original vendee.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vendor rescind an agreement to sell where they have failed to perform their reciprocal obligations?
  • Does possession held in part performance of an agreement to sell take precedence over a subsequent registered sale deed?
  • Is a fresh suit barred under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if a previous suit for possession was dismissed under Order IX Rule 8?
  • Is time considered the essence of a contract when no specific cut-off date for payment is provided in the agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Bibi vs The State, etc2021 [M] C L R 243 · Lahore High Court · 2010-04-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ramzana Bibi vs The State and others2021 LHC 7877 · Lahore High Court
  murder referencechance witnessidentification paradeextra-judicial confessionforensic evidencecriminal appealacquittalburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a murder reference and criminal appeals arising from the conviction of three appellants for the murder of two individuals. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of the ocular account, the validity of the identification parade, and the admissibility of forensic evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The Court found the alleged eye-witnesses were 'chance witnesses' who failed to provide a convincing reason for their presence at the crime scene. Furthermore, the Court determined that the identification parade was flawed due to the lack of proper safeguards and the possibility of prior exposure, and that the extra-judicial confession was factually unsupported. The Court established that forensic evidence, such as DNA and firearm reports, cannot serve as substantive evidence for conviction when the primary ocular account is disbelieved. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can forensic evidence, such as DNA or firearm matching, serve as substantive evidence for conviction if the ocular account is disbelieved?
  • What are the legal requirements for a valid identification parade to be considered reliable evidence?
  • Does the testimony of a chance witness require special corroboration to be accepted by the court?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove that forensic samples were properly collected, packaged, and preserved to meet legal standards for admissibility?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raheela Malik vs Federal Secretary etc2021 PLJ Lahore 125 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rabiyaz Bibi vs Matiur Rehman and 04 others2021 PHC 180, 2022 CLC 686 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-20
  family suitdowerdowry articlesmaintenance allowanceburden of proofexhibition of documentspleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the petitioner's family suit for dower in the form of gold ornaments, dowry articles, and maintenance allowance was partially dismissed, granting only maintenance for the iddat period. The core legal question was whether the petitioner successfully proved her claim for dower and dowry articles through sufficient evidence and whether the exhibition of a document dispenses with the requirement of proving it under the law of evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that mere exhibition of a document does not amount to its formal proof, and a party asserting a fact bears the burden of proof in accordance with pleadings and the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. The court laid down the principle that exhibition of a document is distinct from its legal proof, and documents must be formally proven through cogent evidence rather than relying solely on being exhibited without objection.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exhibition of a document in evidence dispense with the requirement of proving it in accordance with the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order?
  • Can a party succeed on a claim without proving the material facts pleaded in the plaint through cogent and reliable evidence?
  • Whether mere mention of dowry articles in an undated and unsigned list without formal proof is sufficient to grant a decree for dowry?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Parveen Akhtar, etc vs Noor Muhammad, etc2021 LHC 926, 2022 SCMR 1665 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nelofer Iqbal and 2 others vs Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan through Registrar Chief Court and 3 others2021 YLR 1339 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-09-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazia Mughal and another vs Government Of Sindh through Secretary2021 CLC 526 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazia Bibi vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 566 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-28
  narcotic substancesGovernment Analyst reporttest protocolscriminal appealacquittalChars recoverymandatory rules compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 1303 grams of Chars. The core legal question revolves around the legal validity and evidentiary value of the Government Analyst's report when it fails to comply with mandatory procedural requirements. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the failure of the Government Analyst to specify the tests and analysis, the results of the tests, and the test protocols applied pursuant to Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001 renders the report inconclusive, unreliable, and untrustworthy. The key principle laid down is that strict compliance with Rule 6 is mandatory for the prosecution to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, failing which the evidentiary assumption attached to the analyst's report under Section 36(2) of the Act stands vitiated.

  Questions settled

  • What are the mandatory elements that must be included in a Government Analyst report under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001?
  • Does the non-compliance with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001 diminish the evidentiary value of the chemical examiner report?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be sustained on an inconclusive or unreliable Government Analyst report?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naveeda vs The State etc2021 PHC 244 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseema Bibi vs Murad and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (FSC) 264 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-10-29
  QazfZinaAcquittal appealTazkiyah al-ShuhoodMisreading of evidenceCriminal procedureJudgment contents
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the acquittal of the respondent in a criminal complaint filed under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, alleging that the respondent falsely accused her of Zina. The core legal questions concerned whether the trial court misread the evidence, failed to properly evaluate the necessity of Tazkiyah al-Shuhood, and neglected the mandatory procedural requirements for drafting a judgment. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court’s judgment was legally defective, citing significant misreading of evidence, including medical reports and witness statements, and an erroneous approach regarding the delay in filing the complaint, which is permissible in Qazf cases given the sensitivity of the offense. Furthermore, the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 367, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, by not formulating specific points for determination. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case for a fresh decision. The judgment reaffirms that trial courts must provide cogent reasons for their findings and strictly adhere to procedural mandates to ensure justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is a delay in filing a complaint for Qazf fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does a judgment that fails to formulate points for determination as required by Section 367, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, remain sustainable?
  • Can an offer of a special oath be used to determine liability in a criminal case of Qazf?
  • What is the standard for evaluating Tazkiyah al-Shuhood in Hadd cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem vs Farhad Khan and another2021 SCMR 1532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-26
  filicidemurderreduction of sentenceconfessional statementleave to appealreappraisal of evidenceQatl-i-amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, whereby the respondent's conviction under clause (b) of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of his son was altered to clause (c) of the same section, reducing his sentence to the period already undergone. The core legal question concerns the propriety of reducing the conviction and sentence in a case of filicide supported by ocular testimony and a confessional statement. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised merit consideration to reappraise the entire evidence and secure the ends of justice. The key principle laid down is that heinous offenses such as filicide require a meticulous reappraisal of evidence to ensure proportionate sentencing and prevent a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in converting a conviction under clause (b) of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 to clause (c) in a case of filicide?
  • Does a retracted confessional statement coupled with ocular testimony warrant a sentence reduction to the period already undergone?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to reappraise evidence where the High Court has interfered with the quantum of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Sajjad vs Additional District Judge and 4 others2021 CLC 1319 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nargis Yasmeen vs Mst. Ismat Khatoon and 7 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 377 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-09
  service benefitstarkainheritancegratuitybenevolent fundgeneral provident fundgroup insurancecivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition concerns the distribution of service benefits left by a deceased government servant, specifically whether items like gratuity, General Provident Fund, benevolent fund, and group insurance constitute "Tarka" (heritable estate) distributable among all legal heirs. The core legal question was whether these benefits, which accrued upon the employee's death, are heritable under personal law or constitute grants or concessions payable exclusively to the widow or nominee. The Court held that such benefits are not "Tarka" because they did not become due for payment during the employee's lifetime. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate order, ruling that the widow is exclusively entitled to these benefits. The key principle laid down is that the test for determining "Tarka" is whether a service benefit was due and payable during the employee's lifetime. If a benefit accrues only after death as a grant or concession, it is not part of the deceased's estate and is governed by specific service rules rather than general inheritance law.

  Questions settled

  • Are service benefits that accrue only after the death of a government servant considered 'Tarka' for inheritance purposes?
  • What is the test to determine whether a service benefit constitutes part of the deceased's estate?
  • Does the widow of a deceased civil servant have an exclusive right to gratuity and benevolent fund payments over other legal heirs?
  • Can unpaid service benefits that were due during an employee's lifetime be distributed among all legal heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Namoo Bibi widow of Allah Bachaya (deceased) & others vs Sardar2021 LHC 1693 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Naik Murgh and others vs Sanaullah and others2021 CLC 1138 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naheed Shahid etc vs Muhammad2021 LHC 4633, 2022 CLC 513 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nadia w/o Parvez, r/o Batkhel, Dagar Buner vs The State2021 PHC 294 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nadia vs The Inspector General of Police Sindh and 04 others2021 SHC 580 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nadia Shakeel and another vs Shagufta Baqar and another2021 CLC 1712 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nadia & others vs Govt: of KPK & others2021 PHC 206, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1275 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-10
  regularization of servicecivil servantcontractual employmentPPHIprivate agencyArticle 199service of the provincediscrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, Lady Health Visitors appointed by a private entity (Sarhad Rural Support Program) under a management contract with the provincial government, sought regularization into the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa civil service. They alleged discrimination, citing the regularization of similar staff in other districts. The core legal question was whether these employees, hired by a private agency, could be deemed civil servants entitled to regularization under provincial law. The Court held that the petitioners were not government employees, as their appointments were made by a private entity with sole discretion over human resources, and no employer-employee relationship existed with the government. The Court emphasized that regularization requires appointment under the relevant Civil Servants Act or a specific regularization statute, neither of which applied here. Furthermore, the Court rejected the discrimination claim, noting that the comparators were hired directly by the government against permanent posts, whereas the petitioners were project-based employees of a private contractor. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, affirming that private agency staff cannot be regularized into the provincial civil service absent statutory authorization.

  Questions settled

  • Can employees hired by a private entity under a government contract claim the status of civil servants for the purpose of regularization?
  • Does the doctrine of discrimination apply when comparing employees hired by a private agency to those hired directly by the government?
  • Are employees of a private entity contracted by the government entitled to regularization under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act 2018?
  • Does an agency relationship exist between the government and a private entity simply because the entity provides services under a government contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nabeela vs The State and another2022 YLR 861 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-05-05
  Qazffalse accusation of zinadelay in lodging complaintremand for de novo trialHaddFederal Shariat Courtchastity and muhsanapology and pardon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of respondent No.2 by the trial court in a complaint case registered under Section 5 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979 for falsely accusing the appellant of fornication (zina). The core legal questions involved the legality of treating delay in filing a Qazf complaint as fatal to the case, the procedural requirements under Section 203-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the nature of Qazf as an offence involving individual rights where pardon or apology may be considered. The Federal Shariat Court held that, unlike other criminal offences, delay in filing a complaint for Qazf is natural and permissible under Islamic law due to the deep interlinkage of family honour and reputation. The court set aside the acquittal, ruled that the trial court failed to frame points for determination under Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and remanded the matter for a de novo trial. The key principle laid down is that delay in reporting Qazf is not fatal, and Qazf complaints must be adjudicated strictly in accordance with special procedures under the Qazf Ordinance and related protective laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in filing a criminal complaint for the offence of Qazf is fatal to the case?
  • What are the mandatory procedural requirements for taking cognizance of a complaint under Section 203-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in Qazf cases?
  • Can an unconditional apology tendered by an accused in a Qazf case result in acquittal based on the victim's pardon?
  • What options are available to a trial court under the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979 after recording evidence in a complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Murshida Khatoon vs Ch. Abdul Rehman Sahi and another2021 MLD 15 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-08-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Munawar Bibi vs Capital City Police Officer and 2 others2021 PLJ Lahore 820 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mukhtaj Bibi vs The State and another2021 MLD 1972 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-30
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirysupplementary statementmurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner Mst. Mukhtaj Bibi seeking release in case FIR No. 340 registered under sections 302, 148, 149, and 404 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail given the delayed and uncorroborated supplementary statement implicating her and the lack of connecting evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the subsequent statement of the complainant introduced new facts without explanation or independent corroboration, and the recovered articles lacked proof of ownership linking them to the deceased. Consequently, the court ruled that the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under the law. The key principle laid down is that where an afterthought statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 lacks supporting independent evidence and recovery links remain unestablished, the accused is entitled to bail as a matter of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a delayed statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 implicating a new accused without independent corroboration warrants post-arrest bail?
  • Is unverified recovery of personal articles sufficient to establish prima facie participation in a murder offense?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the scope of further inquiry under bail adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mozaffar Islam and another vs Dilkusha Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited2021 CLD 994 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Momina vs Fahad Sajjad, etc2021 YLR 1954, 2021 PHC 38 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehwish Mumtaz vs The State2021 IHC 336 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-12
  pre-arrest bailanonymous complaintcustodial interrogationdocumentary evidenceFIA recruitmentfundamental rightsfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, involving allegations of cheating and forgery in Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) recruitment examinations. The core legal question concerned the validity of initiating criminal proceedings based on an anonymous complaint and the necessity of custodial interrogation when the investigation relies primarily on documentary evidence. The Court held that the proceedings, initiated on an anonymous complaint, violated the Federal Investigation Agency (Inquiries & Investigations) Rules 2002 and established Standard Operating Procedures. Furthermore, as the petitioner had already joined the investigation and the prosecution’s case rested on documentary evidence already in possession of the authorities, custodial detention was deemed unnecessary. The Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that pre-arrest bail serves as a check on police power and that arbitrary arrest, absent sufficient incriminating material, infringes upon fundamental rights to liberty and fair trial. The decision underscores that where documentary evidence is secured, custodial interrogation is not required.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be validly initiated by the Federal Investigation Agency based solely on an anonymous complaint?
  • Is custodial interrogation necessary when the prosecution's case relies entirely on documentary evidence already in the possession of the investigating agency?
  • Does the failure to follow internal Standard Operating Procedures regarding anonymous complaints invalidate the basis for an arrest?
  • When should a court grant pre-arrest bail in cases involving documentary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehnaz Bibi & 2 others vs Muhammad Tahir & another2021 PHC 176, 2022 MLD 945 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maria Munir and another vs Ghulam Haider and 2 others2021 IHC 52 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Laila Hussain vs Board Of Intermediate And Secondary Education, Peshawar through Chairman and 4 others2022 YLR 952 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kulsoom Rasheed vs Noman Aslam2021 SCP 94 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-23
  transfer of family casesexecution of decreefamily courtinterprovincial transferfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a civil miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner wife seeking the transfer of execution proceedings regarding an ex-parte judgment and decree for maintenance and dowry articles from Islamabad West to Karachi, where the respondent resides. The core legal question concerns the power of the Supreme Court of Pakistan under the Family Courts Act, 1964, to transfer family court proceedings from a court in one province to a court in another province to facilitate execution and ensure a fair trial. The Supreme Court held that under Section 25-A(2-B) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, read with Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, this Court has the authority to transfer proceedings from one province to another without notice to the opposing party when circumstances warrant, in order to prevent unnecessary travel costs and safeguard the right to a fair trial. The Court accordingly ordered the transfer of the execution proceedings from Islamabad to the District Judge, Karachi, for assignment to the competent Family Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court transfer a family court case from one province to another?
  • Whether notice to the respondent is mandatory before ordering the transfer of family court proceedings under Section 25-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Does the power of inter-provincial transfer extend to execution proceedings under the Family Courts Act, 1964?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kousar Bibi and 2 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 984 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-25
  pre-arrest bailmala fidemedical evidenceocular accountinvestigation reportcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail concerns three female petitioners accused of offences under Sections 302, 324, 337-F(v), 337-A(i), 337-F(iii), 337-A(ii), 337-L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail based on claims of mala fide implication and lack of evidence. The Court held that the ocular account was contradicted by medical evidence, as the number of injuries attributed to the petitioners did not align with the medical report. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer concluded that the petitioners were not armed and did not participate in the occurrence, a finding that remained unchallenged by the complainant. The Court determined that the petitioners were likely implicated due to their familial relationship with the principal accused, establishing a case of mala fide. The principle laid down is that at the pre-arrest bail stage, the element of mala fide need not be proven by positive evidence but can be deduced from the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly where the prosecution's narrative is contradicted by medical evidence and investigation findings.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the ocular account is contradicted by medical evidence?
  • Is the element of mala fide for pre-arrest bail required to be proven by positive evidence or can it be inferred from the circumstances?
  • What is the effect of an unchallenged investigation report concluding the innocence of the accused on a pre-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khanam Bibi vs Mst. Fozia Bibi and 5 others2022 YLR 664 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khalida Parveen and 19 others vs Government of Punjab and five2021 LHC 5234, 2022 PLJ Lahore 21 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Khairan Bibi vs Mst. Haseena Atta and others2021 PLD Supreme Court 937, 2022 PSC 1402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-14
  condonation of delaytime-barred petitiondirect appealjurisdictionvaluation of suitSupreme Court Ruleslimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal (CPLA) filed against a judgment of the High Court, which was found to be barred by three days. The core legal question concerned whether illness of the stenographer and extreme cold weather constitute sufficient grounds for condonation of delay under limitation principles, and whether a direct appeal under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was competent given the valuation of the subject matter. The Supreme Court held that administrative or personal inconveniences such as staff illness or weather do not warrant condonation of delay, and since the valuation exceeded the statutory threshold and the High Court had reversed the lower appellate court findings, a direct appeal was competent. However, because the petition was barred by limitation and could not be converted into an appeal due to an unexplained delay of thirty-three days, the CPLA was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that inadequate explanations for delay, including reliance on ill-advice or clerical inconveniences, do not justify condonation of delay in filing appellate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the illness of a stenographer and extreme cold weather constitute a sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing a petition before the Supreme Court?
  • Whether a direct appeal lies to the Supreme Court under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when the valuation of the subject matter in the court of first instance and in appeal is not less than fifty thousand rupees and the High Court has reversed the judgment of the court immediately below?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal when the petition itself is barred by limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khair Bibi and 4 others vs Ghulam Sarwar and 17 others2021 CLC 151 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khadija Begum vs Chairman, Board Of Intermediate And Secondary2021 YLR 759 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaneez Mai vs Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, etc2021 LHC 376, 2022 P Cr. L J 1437 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-22
  Anti-Terrorism Courtcomplaint dismissalabduction for ransomprocedural irregularityexamination of complainantdirect cognizanceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Dera Ghazi Khan, which summarily dismissed a complaint regarding the abduction of minors for ransom. The core legal question was whether an Anti-Terrorism Court can dismiss a complaint without adhering to the mandatory procedural requirements prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable as the trial court failed to follow the statutory procedure. Specifically, the Court ruled that upon receiving a complaint, the trial court is legally obligated to immediately examine the complainant on oath under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, before determining whether to dismiss the complaint or issue process. The principle laid down is that while an Anti-Terrorism Court may take direct cognizance of offences under Section 19(3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it must strictly comply with the procedural safeguards of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, regarding the examination of the complainant and the evaluation of evidence before dismissal. The case was remanded for proceedings in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Anti-Terrorism Court dismiss a complaint without examining the complainant on oath under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an Anti-Terrorism Court required to follow the procedural requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when taking direct cognizance of a case?
  • What is the mandatory procedure for a court to follow after receiving a complaint before it can dismiss the same?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kamalan Bibi vs Province of Punjab, etc2021 LHC 5348 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kalsoom Bibi and others vs Muhammad Amin Agha (Deceased)2022 SCMR 929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-13
  suit for possessionallotmentadverse possessionsettlement lawsself-destructive pleasPermanent Transfer Deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for possession filed by the plaintiffs-respondents regarding a portion of property transferred to them via a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) in 1964. The defendants-appellants, who occupied a portion of the property, disputed that their occupied portion was part of the plaintiffs' allotted land, claiming they had applied for its allotment and, alternatively, had acquired ownership via adverse possession. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit, but the High Court reversed these decisions in revision. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, holding that the appellants failed to establish any pending allotment claim before the settlement authorities prior to the repeal of settlement laws by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the appellants' dual claims of ownership via allotment and adverse possession were self-destructive. It reaffirmed that the plea of adverse possession is unavailable as it is contrary to Islamic injunctions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party simultaneously claim ownership of a property through allotment and through adverse possession?
  • Is the plea of ownership based on adverse possession legally sustainable in Pakistan in light of Islamic injunctions?
  • Can settlement authorities initiate proceedings for allotment or conferment of rights after the repeal of settlement laws under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kainat Bibi vs The State and another2022 SCMR 609, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-09
  post-arrest bailfemale accusedprohibitory clausestatutory concessionrecoverypolice custody
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a female domestic maid, sought post-arrest bail after being incarcerated since April 24, 2021, on allegations of stealing gold ornaments valued at Rs. 2.5 million, with a subsequent recovery allegedly made based on her disclosure. Her bail applications were previously dismissed by the lower courts, with the last refusal coming from the Islamabad High Court. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of a female accused to post-arrest bail where the alleged offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of the relevant procedural law and questions arise regarding the legality of a police recovery and prolonged detention. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and considering her status as a female with no criminal record, her continued detention served no useful purpose, particularly given potential procedural irregularities in the recovery conducted by a male police officer. The Court laid down the principle that statutory concessions for the release of female accused persons in non-prohibitory offences warrant a lenient approach toward post-arrest bail, and consequently converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it.

  Questions settled

  • Is a female accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the statutory framework provide wider doors for the release of a female accused with no past criminal record?
  • What is the effect of conducting a recovery from a female accused in alleged violation of Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamila Bibi vs Muhammad Jamil, etc2021 [M] C L R 311 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jaiwanti Bai vs Messrs Amir Corporation and others2021 PLD Supreme Court 434 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-07-19
  specific performancelocus standilimitationassignment of contractreal estatesubleaseforward sale agreementproperty transferunregistered documentpart performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerned a suit for specific performance of a contract for the execution of a sublease for an apartment. The original allottee entered into a forward sale agreement with the appellant's husband, who then nominated the appellant as the transferee. The builder (Respondent No.1) acknowledged the transfer and received payments for the sublease and utility meters but failed to execute the sublease. The trial court dismissed the suit as time-barred, and the first appellate court dismissed it for lack of locus standi, findings upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, as an assignee, had locus standi, stepping into the shoes of her husband and acquiring all contractual rights. It further ruled that the suit was not time-barred, as no date was fixed for performance, and the limitation period under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908, commenced when the legal notice remained unanswered. The Court decreed the suit for specific performance against the builder.

  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Islam Bibi widow of Rehmat Khan, r/o Central Colony Sadda, District2021 PHC 364, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1196 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-10
  pensionary benefitslegal heirswrit jurisdictionlocus standicivil servantconstitutional petitionvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, widow of a deceased Sepoy of the Kurram Levy Force, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court seeking a writ to compel the payment of pensionary benefits for her late husband. The respondents contended that the deceased had resigned prior to his death, a claim the court found unsubstantiated and dubious, noting the lack of evidence and the implausibility of such a resignation after twenty-three years of service. The core legal question was whether the widow of a deceased civil servant has the locus standi to file a writ petition for pensionary benefits, given that Service Tribunals generally lack jurisdiction over legal heirs. The Court held that the petitioner, as a legal heir, has the standing to pursue this claim. Relying on established precedents, the Court affirmed that pensionary benefits are a vested right, not a bounty, and that legal heirs are entitled to these benefits. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the widow of a deceased civil servant have the locus standi to file a writ petition for pensionary benefits?
  • Are pensionary benefits considered a vested right or a bounty for a civil servant?
  • Do Service Tribunals possess the jurisdiction to entertain appeals filed by the legal heirs of a deceased civil servant?
  • Can the benefit of a judgment regarding pensionary rights granted to specific civil servants be extended to others who were not parties to the litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Isbah Rashid vs Additional District Judge, Islamabad-West and 22021 [M] C L R 1424, 2021 CLC 1089 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-13
  family courtvisitation rightsinterim orderconstitutional petitionmaintainabilitycustody of children
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, impugning the orders passed by the Family Court and the Additional District Judge whereby the respondent-father was granted visitation rights to meet his minor daughter for half an hour once a month during the pendency of a family suit. The core legal questions involved were whether a Family Court has jurisdiction to pass an interim visitation order in a suit for maintenance and dower, and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order of the Family Court in view of the bar contained under Section 14(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964. The Islamabad High Court held that Family Courts possess jurisdiction over visitation rights under the Act, and that Section 14(3) explicitly bars appeals or revisions against interim orders, making a constitutional petition against such interlocutory orders unmaintainable as it circumvents legislative intent. The court further held that a natural father has an equal and inalienable right to see his minor children, which cannot be denied based on unsubstantiated health apprehensions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Family Court has the jurisdiction to fix a visitation schedule for a parent during the pendency of a suit for maintenance and dower?
  • Does Section 14(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 bar an appeal or revision against an interim order passed by a Family Court?
  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by a Family Court?
  • Can a real father be restrained from meeting his minor child on the grounds of health apprehensions raised by the mother?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqra Faisal and 5 others vs Zubair Khan and 7 others2021 PLD Sindh 118 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-29
  exhumationpost-mortemunnatural deathreasonable suspicionCode of Criminal Procedurecause of deathlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal miscellaneous application challenging orders for the exhumation and post-mortem of the deceased, Faisal Ramzan Mugheri. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate is empowered to order the disinterment of a body under Sections 174 and 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when such a request is made by a third party, despite opposition from the deceased's legal heirs and claims of natural death. The Sindh High Court held that the primary objective of Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is to ascertain the true cause of death. The Court affirmed that a Magistrate possesses the discretion to order exhumation upon the existence of reasonable suspicion, regardless of whether the applicant is a stranger or if the legal heirs object. The key principle laid down is that the right to determine the cause of death is paramount to ensure justice, and the court’s power to order exhumation is not restricted by the identity of the informant or the passage of time, provided the suspicion is reasonably founded.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate order the exhumation of a dead body upon the request of a person who is not a legal heir?
  • Does the opposition of legal heirs to an exhumation request automatically bar a Magistrate from ordering a post-mortem?
  • Is the existence of reasonable suspicion sufficient to invoke the powers under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the disinterment of a corpse?
  • Does the passage of time after burial prevent a Magistrate from ordering the exhumation of a body to determine the cause of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Imtiaz Bibi vs Federation Of Pakistan through SecretaryEstablishment2021 PLC (C.S.) 452 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-28
  family pensionpension arrearspensionary benefitssurviving widowPension-cum-Gratuity Schemeservice lawgovernment servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns the entitlement of a surviving second wife to the arrears of family pension previously allocated to a deceased first wife. The core legal question was whether the second wife could claim the twenty-eight months of unpaid pension benefits that accrued to the first wife before her death. The court observed that pensionary benefits are governed by the Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme, 1954, which mandates specific distribution protocols among surviving widows and children. The court held that such undrawn pensionary benefits do not automatically lapse or vest solely in the legal heirs of the deceased beneficiary but must be distributed according to the established scheme. Consequently, the court directed the relevant authorities to release the arrears, ordering that the entire family pensionary benefits, including the disputed twenty-eight months of arrears, be distributed among the surviving widow and the deceased's unmarried daughter. This decision reinforces the principle that government departments must avoid unnecessary delays in pension disbursement, as such negligence constitutes a dereliction of duty.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second wife entitled to the arrears of family pension that remained undrawn by the deceased first wife?
  • How are family pension benefits distributed when a government servant leaves behind multiple widows and children?
  • Does the failure of government departments to finalize pension payments constitute a dereliction of duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussna Bibi through LRs vs Ubaid-urRehman & others2021 PHC 264, 2022 CLC 163 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Husna Bibi vs The State2021 PHC 350, 2022 PCRLJ 707 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-25
  post-arrest bailsearch of womennarcotics controlmandatory safeguardsmalafide police action
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner Mst. Husna Bibi sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 1807 registered under Section 9-D of the KP Control of Narcotic Substances Act, following the alleged recovery of 3280 grams of heroin. The core legal question concerned the legality of the search and detention of a female accused by male police personnel on a public road in violation of statutory safeguards, alongside the delayed transmission to a women police station and the absence of a forensic report. The Peshawar High Court allowed the bail petition, holding that the search of a female accused by male police personnel on a public road without regard to decency, coupled with exclusive male custody and delayed transfer to a women police station, created serious doubts regarding the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that mandatory statutory safeguards regarding the search of women by female personnel must be strictly observed, and failure to do so, along with prolonged detention without an FSL report, entitles the accused to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a female accused is entitled to bail when searched by male police personnel in violation of statutory safeguards?
  • Does the absence of an FSL report within a considerable period warrant the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the retention of a female accused in exclusive male police custody vitiates the search proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Husna and 3 others vs Province Of Sindh through D.C.O., Khairpur and 4 others2021 YLR 1705 · Sindh High Court · 2012-11-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hira Imtiaz and another vs The State and 2 others2021 P Cr. L J 1188 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-25
  quashment of FIRfree-will marriageabductionpubertyconstitutional petitionabuse of processmala fide FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of an FIR registered under section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged abduction of the first petitioner for forced marriage. The core legal questions involved whether an FIR for abduction can be sustained when the alleged abductee is a Muslim female of seventeen years who has attained puberty, contracted a valid free-will marriage, and repeatedly stated before a judicial magistrate that she was not abducted, and whether continuation of such proceedings constitutes an abuse of the court's process. The Islamabad High Court held that the marriage was valid under Islamic law since the female was of sound mind, had attained puberty, and gave free consent, and that the impugned FIR was lodged with mala fide intent after concealment of material facts. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, laying down the principle that an FIR lacking probability of conviction and filed maliciously to harass a lawfully married couple is liable to be quashed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an FIR under section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be quashed when the alleged abductee contracts a free-will marriage and states before a magistrate that no abduction took place?
  • Does a seventeen-year-old Muslim female who has attained puberty possess the capacity to contract a valid marriage under Islamic law?
  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR where there is no probability of conviction?
  • Whether an alternative remedy under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bars the filing of a constitutional petition for quashment of a mala fide FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hira Dar vs Govt. of the Punjab, etc2021 PLD Lahore 495, 2021 LHC 1034 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hawa and Others vs National Highway Authority & Others2021 SHC 966 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hassan Jan and 8 others vs Mst. Bushra Zubair and 3 others2021 MLD 1689 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haseena Bibi vs Civil Judge Ist Class Vehari and another2021 LHC 7404 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haseena and another vs Mst. Basran and 6 others2021 YLR 2401 · Sindh High Court · 2014-07-14
  habeas corpusterritorial jurisdictionillegal confinementcoram non judicequashment of proceedingsresidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Thatta, which asserted territorial jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The respondent alleged her daughter was in illegal confinement within the court's jurisdiction. The applicants contended they resided in Karachi, not Thatta, supporting this with their Nikahnama and a pending family suit filed in Karachi. The trial court relied on an older affidavit containing a Thatta address to establish jurisdiction, disregarding evidence of the applicants' current Karachi residence and a police report confirming they were not found at the Thatta address. The High Court held that the trial court erred by failing to appreciate the material on record regarding the applicants' actual residence. Consequently, the court ruled that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction, rendering the proceedings coram non judice and void ab initio. The High Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings, establishing that territorial jurisdiction must be determined based on the actual residence of the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition if the alleged detainee does not reside within its jurisdiction?
  • Can a court rely solely on an address in an affidavit to establish territorial jurisdiction when contrary evidence of residence is provided?
  • Are proceedings initiated by a court lacking territorial jurisdiction considered void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameedan Bibi, etc vs Province Of Punjab, etc2021 PLJ Lahore 539 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameeda Bibi and 3 others vs Khan Muhammad alias Khan Ahmad2021 MLD 2046 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haleema Magsi vs Punhal Magsi and another2021 SHC 1290 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-15
  criminal acquittal appealmurderhostile witnesspresumption of innocenceappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal arises from a judgment passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadkot, acquitting the private respondent of the murder of Mst. Lal Bibi, who died from firearm injuries after being declared "Kari". The mother of the deceased challenged the acquittal, arguing that the trial court failed to properly appraise the evidence. The Sindh High Court observed that the primary eyewitnesses, including the informer/father of the deceased, were declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution's case and explicitly stated that the accused was not the culprit. The High Court noted that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is extremely narrow, requiring a heavy burden on the prosecution to prove that the trial court's judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or suffering from grave misreading or non-reading of evidence. Finding no such infirmity in the trial court's assessment, the High Court held that the acquittal was justified, and consequently dismissed the appeal in limine.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal?
  • Does the hostility of key eyewitnesses provide a valid ground for maintaining an acquittal?
  • When can an appellate court interject in a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hafsa vs Khan Bacha and another2021 PHC 356, 2022 PCr. LJ 372 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulzar vs Mst. Sitara Begum and 13 others2021 MLD 1584 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulshan Begum vs The Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 182 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulnaz vs Haji Muhammad Riaz and others2020 PLD Supreme Court 221, 2020 PLJ SC 268, 2020 P SC 206, 2021 SCMR · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-12-23
  specific performancedirect appealcompetency of appealpetition for leave to appealvariation of judgmentconcurrent findingsconsent decree
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter involves appeals against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court arising from suits for specific performance of agreements to sell and a suit for possession based on a prior consent decree. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of a direct appeal under Article 185(2)(e) of the Constitution of Pakistan when a party challenges only the concurrently dismissed portion of a High Court judgment that partially varied the lower court's decision in their favor. The Supreme Court held that where a judgment is partially upheld and partially reversed, and an appellant challenges only the part that corresponds to concurrent findings against them, such a challenge does not constitute an appealable variation under Article 185(2)(e), rendering a direct appeal incompetent and necessitating a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3). The Court laid down the principle that the term 'varied' under Article 185(2)(e) does not apply when the portion of the judgment altering the lower court's decree was in favor of the appellant and remained unchallenged, while the adverse concurrent findings alone are contested.

  Questions settled

  • Is a direct appeal under Article 185(2)(e) of the Constitution of Pakistan competent when a party challenges only that portion of a High Court judgment where their claim was concurrently dismissed, while the varied portion was in their favor?
  • How is the term 'varied' interpreted under Article 185(2)(e) of the Constitution of Pakistan in the context of partially modified judgments?
  • When is a petition for leave to appeal required under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan instead of a direct appeal?
  • What is the effect of a prior unchallanged consent decree on subsequent suits for specific performance involving the same property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Sakina vs Deputy Commissioner Sargodha, etc2021 LHC 1069 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fursan vs The State2022 SCP 244, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 430, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 937, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-26
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesprohibitory clausewoman bail exceptionrepetition of offencemethamphetamine recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 11(c) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019 for the alleged recovery of 1005 grams of methamphetamine. The core legal question was whether a female accused charged with an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is entitled to bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1), notwithstanding the nature of the narcotic offense and the likelihood of its repetition. The Supreme Court held that while bail for a woman is generally a rule under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, it remains subject to settled exceptions, including the likelihood of repeating the offense. The Court ruled that offenses involving narcotic drugs inherently indicate a probability of repetition due to their commercial and systematic nature, bringing the petitioner's case within the exception. Consequently, the petition for bail was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Sections 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to non-bailable offenses under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019?
  • Does the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make the grant of bail to a woman an absolute right in offenses falling within the prohibitory clause?
  • Can the likelihood of repeating a narcotic offense serve as a valid exception to deny post-arrest bail to a female accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fozia vs The State2021 SHC 1242 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-09
  pre-arrest bailvicarious liabilityinstigationunlawful assemblycriminal bail applicationmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal bail application filed by the applicant, Mst. Fozia, seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of murder committed by an unlawful assembly. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was attributed only the role of instigation in the FIR, was entitled to pre-arrest bail despite allegations of vicarious liability. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to the relief sought. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the FIR was lodged with a one-day delay, the applicant's specific role was limited to instigation, and the parties had a pre-existing dispute, rendering the issue of vicarious liability a matter for trial determination. Furthermore, the Court distinguished the prosecution's cited precedent by noting the absence of absconsion in the present case. The key principle laid down is that where the role attributed is merely instigation and there is no evidence of absconsion, pre-arrest bail may be confirmed on the grounds of mala fide, leaving the determination of vicarious liability to be resolved during the trial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when the role attributed in the FIR is limited to instigation?
  • Does the existence of a prior dispute between parties justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a court confirm pre-arrest bail when the issue of vicarious liability requires determination at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fouzia Razzak vs Federal Board Of Revenue and others2021 PTD 162, PTCL 2022 CL 391 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-19
  recovery of taxattachment of bank accountSection 140 noticeSection 138 noticeIncome Tax Ordinance 2001constitutional petitiondue processpending appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 were filed to challenge the recovery of tax amounts and attachment of bank accounts by the revenue authorities via notices issued directly under Section 140 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, while appeals were pending before the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals). The core legal question was whether the tax authorities can directly attach bank accounts and recover tax under Section 140 of the Ordinance without issuing a prior notice under Section 138 of the Ordinance. The Lahore High Court allowed the petitions, holding that the issuing of a notice under Section 138 is mandatory before invoking Section 140 to give the taxpayer reasonable time to clear the liability. The Court ruled that direct attachment without prior Section 138 notice violates Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution. Consequently, the impugned recovery actions were declared illegal and without lawful authority, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the pending appeals within sixty days.

  Questions settled

  • Is the issuance of a notice under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 mandatory prior to invoking Section 140 for attaching a bank account?
  • Can the revenue department directly recover tax through bank account attachment under Section 140 without giving a reasonable opportunity to pay under Section 138?
  • Does the direct attachment of tax accounts without prior statutory notice violate Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fouzia alias Waziran vs SSP, District Jamshoro and others2021 P Cr. L J 1753 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-28
  Habeas CorpusChild CustodyGuardian and WardsWelfare of MinorNatural GuardianHizanatParental Jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This habeas corpus petition was filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by a mother seeking the recovery of her minor children from their uncle. The core legal question addressed was whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction to determine child custody or if the matter should be relegated to the Guardian and Wards Court. The Court held that while proceedings under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are maintainable for the recovery of minors, they are not the appropriate venue for adjudicating permanent custody or guardianship, which falls under the exclusive purview of the Guardian and Wards Court. The Court emphasized that the paramount consideration in all custody disputes is the welfare of the minor, encompassing their moral, spiritual, and material well-being. While the High Court may intervene in exceptional circumstances to provide interim relief, it generally directs parties to the competent Guardian and Wards Court for a final determination. The principle established is that the Guardian and Wards Court remains the final arbitrator for custody disputes, ensuring decisions align with the minor's best interests.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 maintainable for the recovery of minors?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to determine the permanent custody of a minor in proceedings under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the paramount consideration when deciding the question of custody of a minor?
  • Can a High Court pass interim orders for the restoration of a minor's custody pending a final decision by the Guardian and Wards Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farkhanda Jabeen vs Province of Punjab, etc2021 LHC 5691 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fareeda another vs The State2021 YLR 1828 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-29
  criminal appealmurder trialbenefit of doubthostile witnessdelay in FIRcontradictory evidenceacquittalPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants, a mother and daughter, under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given glaring contradictions in witness testimonies, unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), and tainted recovery evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's evidence was fraught with serious discrepancies, manipulated investigation proceedings, and fatal delays in FIR registration, while the sole eye-witness testified that the deceased committed suicide. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment, established that a hostile witness's testimony cannot be completely discarded if credible, and reaffirmed that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a prosecution witness who has been declared hostile can be entirely discarded by the court?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report in a criminal case?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of suspicion and circumstantial evidence when foundational prosecution witnesses contradict each other?
  • Does a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court entitle the accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Erum Latif vs Imtiaz Khan etc2021 LHC 8226 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bina Shahzada vs Rauf Khan etc2021 PHC 98, 2022 PCr. LJ 821 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Benazir Zardari vs A.D.J I Tando Adam & others2021 SHC 38 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aziza Naeem vs Government Of Sindh through Secretary, Home2021 PLD Sindh 178 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asmat Parveen vs The State and another2021 PLD Lahore 105 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-15
  post-arrest bailcontrol of narcotic substancesroznamcha waqiyatipolice rules amendmentplanting of evidencewoman offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks post-arrest bail for a female petitioner accused under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, regarding the alleged recovery of 2000 grams of charas. The core legal questions involve evaluating malafide in the simultaneous registration of FIRs against family members at the same location, the requirement of maintaining manual Roznamcha Waqiyati alongside electronic copies under the Police Rules, 1934, and whether the petitioner makes a case for further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that the possibility of a planted case cannot be ruled out due to concurrent FIRs registered within minutes at the same premises, and ordered the mandatory simultaneous maintenance of manual and electronic police registers to prevent fabrication. The Court laid down that soft copies of police registers cannot substitute manual registers, and granted post-arrest bail to the woman petitioner under section 51(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, considering her status as a previous non-convict and the completion of investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the simultaneous registration of multiple FIRs against family members at the same venue creates reasonable grounds for further inquiry warranting post-arrest bail?
  • Can an electronic or soft copy of a police register legally substitute the manual Roznamcha Waqiyati?
  • Does the amendment to the Police Rules, 1934, abolish the requirement of maintaining manual police registers?
  • Whether a female accused who is a previous non-convict and whose investigation is complete is entitled to post-arrest bail in a narcotics case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asia Qaseem and others vs Alamzeb and anotherPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 190, 2021 SCMR 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-19
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationmurderforensic evidenceperverse orderappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Peshawar High Court's order granting post-arrest bail to the respondent in a murder case registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion judicially when granting bail. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's decision was based on significant factual errors: it incorrectly stated the deceased suffered only two wounds, ignoring that injuries matched the number of accused, and erroneously concluded that forensic evidence was irrelevant because weapons were not sent to the laboratory, despite evidence that both empties and weapons were analyzed with positive matches. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was perverse and not supported by the record. Consequently, the Court set aside the bail-granting order and cancelled the respondent's bail, reaffirming the principle that while strong grounds are required for bail cancellation, an order based on a misreading of the record is liable to be set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bail-granting order be set aside if it is based on a factual misreading of the record?
  • Does the failure of a court to correctly appreciate forensic evidence in a bail application constitute a ground for cancellation of bail?
  • Is a bail order that ignores the number of injuries sustained by victims considered perverse?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Arbab Khatoon vs Imam Bakhsh and 3 others2021 MLD 1286 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-15
  criminal acquittal appealchance witnessocular and medical evidence conflictdouble presumption of innocenceforensic evidence delaymotive as double-edged weaponmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Allah Yar, which acquitted the respondents of murder charges under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was based on a sound appreciation of evidence or suffered from legal infirmity. The Balochistan High Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the prosecution witnesses were "chance witnesses" who failed to justify their presence at the crime scene. Furthermore, the court identified a fatal conflict between the ocular testimony, which alleged the use of automatic weapons, and the medical evidence, which indicated shotgun pellet injuries. Additionally, the court noted the absence of recovered light sources for identification and an unexplained three-month delay in submitting forensic evidence. Reaffirming that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, the court concluded that the trial judge’s reasoning was neither perverse nor fanciful, and thus dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the type of weapon used entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be accepted without a convincing explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending forensic evidence to the laboratory render the report unreliable as corroborative evidence?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aqsa Zeeshan vs Government Of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 52022 YLR 665 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anwar Bibi vs Mst. Maroof Jan etc2021 IHC 136 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anam Abid and 7 others vs Government of the Punjab and 4 others2021 LHC 8031 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-15
  locus poenitentiaeaudi alteram partempublic recruitmentvoid ab initioservice rulesdue processjudicial reviewvested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the legality of the withdrawal of appointments of Junior Clerks made under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, following an inquiry that declared the recruitment process void ab initio due to systemic irregularities. The core legal questions were whether the principle of locus poenitentiae protected the petitioners' appointments and whether the failure to provide individual show-cause notices violated the principle of audi alteram partem. The Court held that the withdrawal of appointments was lawful, ruling that locus poenitentiae does not protect rights derived from void or illegal orders. Furthermore, the Court determined that the right to a personal hearing is not absolute and may be dispensed with when an entire recruitment process is tainted by systemic malpractice, provided the approach is proportionate. The key principles laid down are that no vested right can be founded upon an illegal order, and in cases of widespread irregularities, the executive may scrap an entire recruitment process to ensure transparency without conducting individual inquiries for every candidate.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae protect appointments made through a recruitment process subsequently declared void ab initio?
  • Is the right to a personal hearing under the principle of audi alteram partem absolute when an entire recruitment process is cancelled due to systemic irregularities?
  • Can an executive authority withdraw appointments without issuing individual show-cause notices if the entire selection process is tainted by malpractice?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amna Shaheen vs State etc2021 PLJ Lahore 645 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-19
  Section 164 Cr.P.C.recording of statementterritorial jurisdictionconstitutional petitionabductionMagistrate's powersLahore High Court Rules and Orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Criminal Division, Multan, which declined to record the petitioner's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner, having contracted a marriage against her parents' wishes, sought to record her statement to refute allegations of abduction made in an FIR registered against her husband. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate is required to have territorial jurisdiction over the case to record a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Relying on Rule 4(f) of Chapter 13 of Volume-III of the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders, the Court held that a Magistrate is not required to possess territorial jurisdiction over the case to record such a statement. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Magistrate to record the petitioner's statement. The judgment affirms the principle that any aggrieved person may request the recording of their statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before any competent Magistrate, regardless of territorial jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate require territorial jurisdiction over a case to record a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Who is entitled to request the recording of a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Magistrate refuse to record a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ameer Jehan alias Bisma Noureen vs The State and others2021 PLD Sindh 145 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-03
  judicial immunitygood faithmala fidesframing of chargecriminal procedurejudicial officers' protectionSection 22-A Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal miscellaneous application challenging the dismissal of a petition filed under Section 22-A(6)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The applicant, an accused in a pending criminal case, sought to initiate criminal proceedings against Judicial Magistrates, alleging that the framing of charges against her constituted an offence. The core legal question was whether a Judicial Officer incurs criminal liability for performing mandatory judicial functions, such as framing charges, while acting in good faith. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the Judicial Magistrates acted within their jurisdiction and in accordance with mandatory procedural law. The Court affirmed that under Section 77 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Judicial Officers' Protection Act 1850, judicial acts performed in good faith are immune from criminal and civil liability. The key principle laid down is that judicial officers are protected when acting judicially, and allegations of mala fides against them require a high burden of proof, which the applicant failed to meet. The proper remedy for grievances against judicial orders is to challenge them in an appropriate appellate forum, not to initiate criminal complaints against the presiding officers.

  Questions settled

  • Does the framing of a charge by a Judicial Magistrate constitute a criminal offence?
  • Are judicial acts performed in good faith protected from criminal prosecution under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the burden of proof required to establish mala fides against a Judicial Officer for their official acts?
  • Is a criminal complaint the appropriate legal remedy for an aggrieved party to challenge a judicial order passed by a Magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Allah Dini vs SSP Kashmore @ Kandhkot and others2021 SHC 1188 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →